The Legacy of the Kitab: Sibawayhi's Analytical Methods Within the Context of the Arabic Grammatical Theory 9004168133, 9789004168138

Citation preview

The Legacy of the Kitāb

Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics Edited by

T. Muraoka and C.H.M. Versteegh

VOLUME 51

The Legacy of the Kitāb Sībawayhi’s Analytical Methods within the Context of the Arabic Grammatical Theory

By

Ramzi Baalbaki

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Baʾlabakki, Ramzi. The legacy of the Kitab : Sibawayhi’s analytical methods within the context of the Arabic grammatical theory / by Ramzi Baalbaki. p. cm. — (Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics ; v. 51) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-16813-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Sibawayh, ʿAmr ibn ʿUthman, 8th cent. Kitab. 2. Arabic language—Grammar—History. I. Title. II. Title: Sibawayhi’s analytical methods within the context of the Arabic grammatical thoery. III. Series. PJ6101.S53B23 2008 492.75—dc22 2008014324

ISSN 0081-8461 ISBN 978 90 04 16813 8 Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Preface ..................................................................................................

vii

Chapter One The Background of the Kitāb ............................... 1. Introduction .............................................................................. 2. Early “Grammatical” Activity and the Kitāb ....................... 3. Grammarians Cited in the Kitāb ........................................... 4. Grammatical Works Contemporary with the Kitāb ...........

1 1 2 11 24

Chapter Two Fundamental Analytical Tools in the Kitāb ....... 1. Introduction .............................................................................. 2. Samāʿ (Attested Data) .............................................................. 3. Qiyās (Analogy) ........................................................................ 4. ʿIlla (Cause) ............................................................................... 5. Taqdīr (Suppletive Insertion) ................................................. 6. ʿAmal (Government) ................................................................ 7. Aṣl (Origin) ............................................................................... 8. Group Membership ..................................................................

31 31 35 47 56 68 83 98 112

Chapter Three Sībawayhi’s Analytical Methods ......................... 1. Introduction .............................................................................. 2. The Preservation of “Basic Rules” ......................................... 3. The Classification of Data Within a Coherent System ...... 4. The Balance Between Form and Meaning ........................... 5. The Role of the Speaker and Listener ................................... 6. The Use of Mit̠āl and Šāhid .................................................... 7. The Tools of Checking System Validity ................................ 8. The Internal Unity of the Kitāb .............................................

133 133 134 152 170 191 207 215 226

Chapter Four Comparison with Subsequent Authors .............. 1. Introduction .............................................................................. 2. From Sībawayhi to Mubarrad ................................................ 3. The Degeneration of Sībawayhi’s Approach and the Predominance of Formal Considerations ............................. 4. The Pedagogical Implications ................................................. 5. Attempts to Restore the Role of Meaning ............................

231 231 236 250 263 272

vi

contents

Bibliographical References ................................................................ Primary Sources ............................................................................. Secondary Sources .........................................................................

307 307 313

Indices .................................................................................................. Index of Names .............................................................................. Index of Terms ............................................................................... Index of Qurʾānic Quotations .....................................................

321 323 328 335

PREFACE The Kitāb of Sībawayhi (d. 180/796) is undoubtedly the most authoritative work in the long history of Arabic grammar. Its exhaustive contents became almost a definitive corpus for subsequent grammarians, who were also indeed faithful to its author’s terminology, arguments and set of analytical tools. Posthumously named al-Kitāb as a sign of the awe with which it was regarded, Sībawayhi’s book soon earned the epithet Qurʾān al-naḥ w, or the “holy book of grammar”. Ṣāʿid al-Andalusī (d. 462/1070) even compared it to Ptolemy’s Almagest and Aristotle’s Organon, basing this comparison on his conviction that its author did not leave out any of the truly essential elements of its field. Although one may assume that the visible influence which the Kitāb has had on the Arabic grammatical tradition as a whole should make the study of its legacy a relatively simple endeavor, such an assumption is basically incorrect. It is true that Sībawayhi’s most essential notions, such as qiyās (analogy), ʿilla (cause), taqdīr (suppletive insertion), ʿamal (government), and aṣl (origin), were largely preserved by subsequent authors, but it is equally true that Sībawayhi’s vivid and dynamic analysis of his material, particularly at the level of syntax, gradually gave way to a rigid approach inclined towards formal considerations as part of the effort aimed at standardization and systematization of grammatical issues. In fact, within a period of no more than a hundred years, Mubarrad’s (d. 285/898) approach to grammatical analysis considerably differed in various ways from that of Sībawayhi’s, yet Mubarrad did not question any of the premises upon which Sībawayhi’s grammatical theory rests. Indeed, these premises were never challenged in the tradition, except for Ibn Maḍāʾ’s (d. 592/1196) unique attempt to prove the invalidity of the grammarians’ notions of qiyās, ʿilla, and taqdīr. To write on the legacy of the Kitāb is thus primarily to examine those notions and methods which Sībawayhi utilized in his grammatical analysis and which were generally adopted by subsequent grammarians. Accordingly, we propose in this book both a thorough examination of the Kitāb itself and an assessment of its impact on later authors. To begin with, the Kitāb ought to be placed in the context of early grammatical activity, mostly in the second/eighth century. Ironically, the most

viii

preface

important source for the study of the pre-Sībawayhi stage of grammatical activity is the Kitāb itself. Most of our first-hand knowledge of the grammarians of that period comes from Sībawayhi’s own quotations, most importantly the numerous quotations from his two influential and perhaps sole teachers, Ḫ alīl b. Aḥmad (d. 175/791) and Yūnus b. Ḥ abīb (d. 182/798). As far as the works authored by Sībawayhi’s contemporaries are concerned, most of these belong to the lexicographic tradition, although some of them incidentally touch upon grammatical issues. These include root-based and thematically arranged lexica, and a number of risālas dealing with a variety of linguistic matters, such as nawādir (rare usage), ġarīb (strange or unfamiliar usage), amt̠āl (proverbs), etc. Also extant are a number of linguistically-oriented exegetical works, as well as a couple of grammatical texts whose attribution to contemporaries of Sībawayhi is doubtful. A comparison between the Kitāb and these sources, however, readily reveals that it is the first unequivocally authentic book on Arabic grammar. Unlike other sources of the period, it systematically and exhaustively examines grammatical phenomena, particularly syntax and morphology, with recourse to a coherent theory whose axioms are still very much alive at present. In order to appreciate Sībawayhi’s influence on the grammatical tradition as a whole, it is essential to examine thoroughly his analytical tools, most of which apply both to syntax and morphology. The precision and consistency with which Sībawayhi uses these tools further demonstrates the coherency of his system of grammatical analysis. The study of these analytical tools raises various methodological and epistemological issues which we shall examine. Among these in the case of samāʿ, for instance, is the relative importance Sībawayhi attaches to the different genres which form part of his corpus, as well as his focus on Ḥ iğāzī and Tamīmī usage, albeit not to the exclusion of other documented dialectal usage. With regard to qiyās, there is a clear attempt to establish a link between the competence of the native speakers in discovering similarities and relationships, on the one hand, and the grammarian’s task of analyzing the logical bases of analogical extension, on the other. Being primarily the function of the speaker, qiyās should thus be used by the analyst—as Sībawayhi implies—to unveil the factors behind the speaker’s choice of forms, constructions, case-endings, word-order, etc. Furthermore, Sībawayhi uses notions such as ʿilla, taqdīr and aṣl not only to describe and analyze utterances, but also to justify the speech of the Arabs. Accordingly, almost every grammatical phenomenon is analyzed with the assumption that it is the product of a discernible

preface

ix

reason that involves virtual wisdom on the part of the speaker. This explains Sībawayhi’s interest in tracing the mental processes which speakers perform in formulating their utterances and the fact that he accepts properly attested usage, only rarely describing it as impermissible. At a broader level, it is interesting to examine the interrelatedness of Sībawayhi’s analytical tools, which he utilizes in their entirety in the interpretation and justification of usage. For example, taqdīr may be employed in the analysis of an utterance which is supported by samāʿ, but which, at the level of surface structure, contradicts qiyās or what is considered the “norm” of usage. Hence, a ʿilla may be provided to explain this apparent anomaly and, as a result, the proposed taqdīr will restore the aṣl or justify the ʿamal by the assumption of an elided operant. As a consequence, each analytical tool is validated by other tools in the system, and in turn participates in validating other tools. In dealing with the data at his disposal, Sībawayhi adopts a number of methods and strategies which form the backbone of his grammatical analysis. Foremost among these methods and strategies—which will be examined in detail—is his recognition of what may be called “basic rules”, which are powerful enough to explain the majority of the data in each case, and which contrast with irregular forms and patterns. Aberrant material is then interpreted within this context; it is normally admitted to the corpus but may not be generalized through qiyās. Another method which Sībawayhi employs in handling his material is to highlight the coherence and consistency of linguistic phenomena. He achieves this by hierarchically arranging linguistic elements based on criteria such as lightness (ḫiffa), being first (awwal) in a defined group, and strength (quwwa) as exhibited in a variety of aspects including ability to govern, to be analogically extended, and to enjoy freedom of word order. But the two most important and far-reaching among Sībawayhi’s methods of analysis are the balance which he draws between form (lafẓ) and meaning (maʿnā), and the roles he assigns to the speaker and listener, for therein lies the essence of his approach, which most later grammarians failed to capture. As part of his syntactical analysis in which he explains and justifies the formal relationships among the constituents of structure, Sībawayhi examines the semantic component of speech, in particular the effect which an alteration of a formal aspect—such as a change in case-endings or word order—has on meaning. He particularly demonstrates the relationship between form and meaning by examining pairs of constructions which differ in a specific formal aspect and hence express different meanings. Furthermore, his

x

preface

employment of taqdīr is often related to the meaning of the construction under discussion, and his description of usage as qabīḥ , ḥ asan, etc. may well be due to semantic reasons. Also related to meaning, though from a different perspective, is the role he assigns to the speaker and listener in successful communication. In this respect, it will be demonstrated that, among the most distinctive features of the Kitāb, are Sībawayhi’s approach to language as social behavior which takes place in a specific context, and his reconstruction of the internal thinking of the speaker in formulating his utterance in a manner which can best express the meaning he intends to impart to the listener. One of the main themes of this book is the difference between Sībawayhi and most subsequent grammarians concerning the role of meaning in grammatical analysis. The preponderance of formal considerations over meaning occurred at a fairly early stage in the tradition, along with a clear tendency towards expanding the role of qiyās as an arbiter in the acceptance of usage and introducing to the study of grammar elements of logic, particularly in the realm of causation (taʿlīl). Yet in spite of the general tendency of later authors to give priority to formal analysis, there were a few attempts to restore to maʿnā its central role in grammatical study and to examine utterances from the viewpoint of the speaker’s intention. The most important attempts of this kind, ̌ ̌ namely, Ibn Ginnī’s (d. 392/1002), Gurğānī’s (d. 471/1078), and Suhaylī’s (d. 581/1195), will be compared with the Kitāb and with the works of later grammarians. Despite the difference between these authors and Sībawayhi, their focus on meaning and on the speaker—a focus which is aimed at redressing the balance between form and meaning—makes them closer to Sībawayhi than to those later grammarians who largely neglect the semantic dimension and analyze structure from an almost purely formal perspective, with the aim of codifying rules and systematizing usage. Unfortunately, however, the above-mentioned attempts remained generally marginal within the overall grammatical tradition, and Sībawayhi’s meaning-based interpretations were ultimately replaced by the pedantic formulae and rigid rules which characterize the work of most later authors. It gives me pleasure to conclude this preface by acknowledging the help and support which several colleagues and friends extended to me while working on this book. In particular, I am indebted to Professor Kees Versteegh for his continued support for this project since its very early stages; Professor Saleh Said Agha for his valuable suggestions, especially with regard to the translation of the numerous poetry šawāhid

preface

xi

which I cited; Mrs. Rula Baalbaki for enhancing the readability of the text by commenting on matters of formulation and style; Mr. Bilal Orfali for providing some of the references which were not available to me; Mrs. Sara Khalidy for her help in preparing the first soft copy of the book and for proofreading that draft; and Mrs. Rana Kaidbey Hamadeh for her input on technical matters related to the preparation of the final draft. I should also like to thank the American University of Beirut for granting me, during a good part of the academic year 2006–2007, a much-needed Research Leave during which a major part of this work was accomplished. Beirut, January 2008

CHAPTER ONE

THE BACKGROUND OF THE KITᾹB 1. Introduction The premature death of Sībawayhi 1 around 180/796 meant that it was left to his contemporaries to give a title to his huge and possibly unfinished opus. They could have hardly chosen a more appropriate name than al-Kitāb to express their appreciation of Sībawayhi’s insight into syntactical and morphological issues of Arabic. The introduction of the definite article al- to Kitāb, hence al-Kitāb, is an example of the formation of what is known as ʿalam bi-l-ġalaba (noun of prevalence),2 and in this case it refers either to the Book of God (i.e. Qurʾān) or the Book of Sībawayhi, also referred to as Qurʾān al-naḥw 3 in a rare instance of associating the word Qurʾān with something other than the Revealed Book. The fact that Sībawayhi’s Kitāb is the oldest extant grammatical work in the Arabic tradition and at the same time the most comprehensive and influential for centuries to come is perhaps striking but not unparalleled. Pāṇini’s (c. 400 B.C.) Aṣtạ̄ dhyāyī is also the oldest extant grammar of Classical Sanskrit, and it can be argued that the Indian and Arabic grammatical traditions are “remarkably similar, with the best linguist standing right in the beginning of the recorded history in both cases”.4 But whereas Indian grammatical activity, which goes back several centuries before Pāṇini, was quite considerable, particularly in phonetic-phonological analysis and etymology,5 one can go back no more than a few decades before Sībawayhi to ascertain any meaningful contribution to linguistic study in the Arabic tradition. This fact is essential for the appreciation of the efforts of Sībawayhi, and certainly of his master al-Ḫ alīl b. Aḥmad (d. 175/791), in establishing a grammatical

1 For details of Sībawayhi’s biography, see Ḥ adītī̠ (1967: 9 ff.), Šayḫ ʿAbdō (2000: 13 ff.), and Carter (2004: 7 ff.). 2 Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 92; Ušmūnī, Šarḥ I, 86. 3 Abū l-Ṭayyib, Marātib 106; Marzubānī, Muqtabas 58; Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna I, 371. 4 Itkonen (1991: 130). 5 Ibid., 10–12.

2

chapter one

theory which by far transcends any previous activity attributed to various scholars of the second/eighth century. At the risk of oversimplification, the Arabic grammatical tradition, which extends from the second/eighth century up to the relatively recent past with authors like Suyūtị̄ (d. 911/1505) and Baġdādī (d. 1093/1682), may be roughly divided into three stages, based on Sībawayhi’s Kitāb as the point of reference. Thus, one can speak of a pre-Sībawayhi stage, which accounts for the early linguistic activity leading to the phase of grammatical writing; of the stage which the Kitāb represents through its content and the set of grammatical notions and methods which it embraces; and finally of a post-Sībawayhi stage in which Sībawayhi’s overall system of grammatical analysis and the body of his analytical tools were largely adopted although a few notable developments did take place during that stage. Based on this oversimplified, but basically sound, division of the grammatical tradition, the Kitāb can best be appreciated within the context of the scholarly activity which took place in the second/eighth century and which reflects an interest in lexicographical matters in general as well as a more defined interest in grammar, particularly syntax. This chapter deals specifically with the relationship between the Kitāb and the linguistic activity with which it was contemporaneous. 2. Early “Grammatical” Activity and the Kitāb Although the accounts given in the biographical sources from the fourth/ tenth century onward about the beginnings of what can be loosely described as “grammatical” activity are at times contradictory and may well be unauthentic, they help us learn about the reasons thought to be behind the interest in grammar during the first/seventh century. Among those who are said to be the first to lay the foundations (rasama, waḍaʿa) of Arabic grammar are Naṣr b. ʿᾹṣim (d. 89/708) and ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Hurmuz6 (d. 117/735). But the most widely accepted view according to the sources is that the founder of Arabic grammar is Abū l-Aswad al-Duʾalī7 (d. 69/688). It is quite possible that the proponents of this

6 Sīrāfī, Ah̠bār 13; Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 26–27; Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist 45; Qifṭī, Inbāh II, 172; III, 343. 7 See a list of sources which claim that Abū l-Aswad is the founder of Arabic grammar in Muṣtạ fā (1948: 69–71) and Dağanī (1974: 162–165). More recently, Talmon (1985b:

the background of the kitĀb

3

view wanted to establish a link between the founding of grammar and ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661) with whom Abū l-Aswad was closely associated, or perhaps to ascribe to the Basran tradition a lineage which goes back to the middle of the first/seventh century.8 But more vital than determining who the first grammarian was according to the sources is to determine what he was, and primarily what triggered his interest and that of his contemporaries in grammatical study. It is important here to note that the riwāyas, or anecdotes, which the sources normally cite in this respect revolve around the idea of corruption of speech. Most of these riwāyas quote incorrect readings of Qurʾānic verses, such as anna l-Lāha barīʾun min al-mušrikīna wa-rasūlahu/wa-rasūlihi (“that God and His Apostle dissolve [treaty] obligations with the Pagans; Q 9:3), where the use of the genitive in wa-rasūlihi instead of the accusative disastrously suggests that God has repudiated his prophet, Muḥammad! Other riwāyas cite mistakes in the realms of phonology (e.g. ḍāliʿ instead of ẓāliʿ, lame), morphology (e.g. ʿaṣātī instead of ʿaṣāya, my stick), and syntax. In the case of syntax, quotations can be roughly divided into those where incorrect usage has little bearing on meaning (e.g. māta abānā wa-h̠allafa banūna, “Our father died and left sons”), and those where confusion in meaning arises (e.g. mā ašadda l-ḥ arra “How hot it is”! and mā ašaddu l-ḥ arri “What hotness is most severe”?). There are also statements which do not cite specific examples but generally complain of a grievous linguistic situation brought about by the spread of laḥ n (solecism) due to the contact of Arabs with non-native speakers of Arabic.9 It is therefore understandable that to Abū l-Aswad is ascribed the mission of amending the speech of the Arabs (aḍaʿ ʿilm yuqīmūna bihi kalāmahum) or of teaching the mawālī “correct” speech because they adopted Islam and thus became brothers (ih̠wa) to Muslims.10 The evidence of the biographical sources can be examined from another perspective, namely, the grammatical topics which are claimed

143) concluded that “we can only affirm that Ibn ʾAbī ʾIsḥāq is really the earliest Arab grammarian whom the extant Arabic sources permit us to identify”. 8 See Versteegh (1993: 167–174) for several models of genealogies leading from Sībawayhi to Abū l-Aswad. 9 See also several examples of linguistic distortion ascribed to non-Arab speakers in Ğāḥiẓ, Bayān I, 69–74; II, 210 ff. 10 Suyūtị̄ , Ah̠bār 167–168.

4

chapter one

to have captured the attention of the grammarians of the first and early second centuries A.H. These are the following:11 1. The parts of speech (kalām): the noun (ism), which indicates a designation (mā anbaʾa ʿan al-musammā); the verb ( fiʿl), which is a movement (ḥ araka); and the particle (ḥ arf ), which has a meaning not signified by the first two parts. The nouns are further divided into explicit nouns, pronouns, and other elements that are neither of those. 2. The particles governing the accusative: inna, anna, layta, laʿalla, kaʾanna and lākinna. A few other operants are mentioned in some accounts, namely, those which govern raf ʿ (nominative and/or indicative), naṣb (accusative and/or subjunctive), ḫ afḍ (genitive), and ğazm (jussive). 3. Three disparate topics: subject and object, admirative constructions, and the construct state. It is quite conceivable that the subjects mentioned in 2 and 3 above were among the first which aroused the interest of the early explorers of Arabic speech, particularly because they are highly liable to laḥ n which is uniformly cited in the sources as a major factor in the initiation of grammatical activity. Less credible, however, at this early stage is the claim that grammarians divided kalām into parts, given that it is a purely theoretical issue which is hardly of any use in achieving “correct” speech or avoiding errors in Qurʾānic recitation. It is possible that the inclusion of the parts of speech and their functions in the accounts which highlight ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib’s influence on Abū l-Aswad are part of the attempts to credit ʿAlī with laying the foundation of grammar, especially since parts of speech are given precedence in the Kitāb and are discussed in its very first lines. The emergence of grammatical activity is thus strongly linked in the sources with two interrelated basic needs: that of teaching “proper usage” to avoid error, and that of serving the Qurʾānic text. In both cases, it is safe to conclude that grammar, as a Hilfswissenschaft, served a practical purpose since its inception, and, incidentally, this would strengthen the argument that naḥw was an Arab discipline, which sprung in response

11 Ibn Sallām, Ṭabaqāt I, 12; Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 11–12; Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 20–21; Suyūtị̄ , Ah̠bār 162–164. See also Baalbaki (1995a: 124–125).

the background of the kitĀb

5

to indigenous linguistic and religious factors, and not a readily available borrowed discipline. It is indeed remarkable how soon and how drastic the shift was in the direction of establishing a grammatical theory, with dwindling interest in addressing the pedagogical needs of a community that was generally portrayed as victim of laḥ n.12 The role of Sībawayhi in this shift is by no means exaggerated. If grammatical activity was started, as Blachère says, not through a “désir d’exposer la structure et le fonctionnement de la langue arabe, mais du besoin impérieux de réciter correctement le texte du Coran”,13 then it is amazing to see how, within the hundred years or so between Abū l-Aswad al-Duʾalī on the one hand and Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi on the other, the central concern of the early lexicographers came to be the very thing which was not on the minds of the “founders” of grammar as the riwāyāt have it, namely, exposing the structure of the language and experimenting with ideas that form a theory which explains and justifies linguistic usage. The Kitāb, as Carter maintains, is “si descriptive et si spéculative qu’il en est à peu près inutilisable comme manuel pédagogique”,14 and thus represents a major development from early grammatical activity, at least as the sources portray it. Early grammatical activity cannot be studied in isolation of the more general interest in Qurʾānic reading, prophetic tradition, jurisprudence and exegesis, since all of these disciplines have a substantial linguistic component. We gather from the sources that most of the grammarians before Sībawayhi were readers (qurrāʾ ): Naṣr b. ʿᾹṣim (d. 89/708) was “one of the readers”, one student of whose was Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ (d. 154/771);15 ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Hurmuz (d. 117/735) also was “one of the readers”;16 Ibn Abī Isḥāq (d. 117/735) was “a master of qirāʾa”;17 ʿĪsā b. ʿUmar’s (d. 149/766) reading is described as “celebrated” (mašhūra);18 Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ was one of the seven authorized readers;19 and Hārūn b. Mūsā (d. circa 170/786) was interested in the qirāʾāt, and

12 For the conflict between the theoretical basis of Arabic grammar and its pedagogical attainability, and for a wider discussion of the issues discussed in the text above, see Baalbaki (2005b: 39–68, esp. 40–45). 13 Blachère (1952–66: I, 108). 14 Carter (1973b: 301). 15 Sīrāfī, Ah̠bār 21. 16 Ibid., 22; Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist 45. 17 Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 26; cf. Ibn al-Ğazarī, Ġāya I, 410. 18 Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 28; see also Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 41 for some of his readings. 19 Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist 30.

6

chapter one

particularly the ones that are šād̠da̠ (unorthodox).20 As far as ḥ adīt̠ is concerned, the sources frequently mention the names of grammarians who narrated it or were formally trained in it. Thus, it is reported that Abū l-Aswad (d. 69/688) narrated ḥ adīt̠ which he had heard from ʿAlī and ʿUmar,21 Ibn Abī Isḥāq from his father,22 Yaḥyā b. Yaʿmur (d. 129/746) from Ibn ʿUmar and Ibn ʿAbbās,23 and Ḫ alīl b. Aḥmad (d. 175/791) from Ayyūb, ʿᾹṣim al-Aḥwal and others.24 The interrelatedness between grammar and both Qurʾānic reading and the then nascent disciplines of ḥ adīt̠ (prophetic tradition), fiqh (jurisprudence) and tafsīr (exegesis) is supported by the Kitāb as well as by the biographical sources. Sībawayhi often cites and comments on Qurʾānic readings as part of his analysis of the speech of the Arabs. Irrespective of whether or not he actually criticizes or rejects certain readings,25 it is clear in the Kitāb that its author is well-versed in qirāʾāt as a discipline whose material he utilizes not only as a source of data but also as basis for discussion of various linguistic issues. The fact that some grammarians tend to read certain Qurʾānic verses in a particular manner may be one of the reasons why Sībawayhi frequently brings in qirāʾāt into his grammatical discussions. An early mention of this tendency is that by Ibn Sallām (d. 232/846) who ascribes to ʿĪsā b. ʿUmar (d. 149/766) an inclination to choose the accusative and subjunctive (both called naṣb) respectively for nouns and verbs which admit other possibilities (wa-kāna ʿĪsā b. ʿUmar id̠ā h̠talafat al-ʿArab nazaʿa ilā l-naṣb).26 It is not coincidental that all five verses which Ibn

Suyūtị̄ , Buġya II, 321; Ibn al-Ğazarī, Ġāya II, 348. Yāqūt, Muʿğam IV, 1465. 22 Suyūtị̄ , Buġya II, 42. 23 Sīrāfī, Ah̠bār 22; Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 28; Yāqūt, Muʿğam VI, 2836. 24 Yāqūt, Muʿğam III, 1262. For other examples of early grammarians who participated in a variety of Islamic disciplines, see Carter (1972a: 88–89). See also the interesting statistics which Versteegh (1989: 289–302) provides, based on material from Suyūtị̄ ’s biographical dictionary, Buġyat al-wuʿāt, concerning the correlation between grammarians and a subsidiary discipline. These show that, throughout the grammatical tradition, the two favorite disciplines to be found in combination with the study of grammar are the study of law and the study of qirāʾa. 25 This issue was the subject of a prolonged controversy, particularly between Ḍ ayf (1968: 19, 157) who fails to find any example of Sībawayhi’s alleged rejection of qirāʾāt, and Anṣārī (1972: 16–37) who more convincingly demonstrates that Sībawayhi unequivocally rejects or criticizes three qirāʾāt, but more frequently rejects or criticizes the usage which appears in certain qirāʾāt. For a detailed discussion of Anṣārī’s evidence, see Baalbaki (1985: 17–21). 26 Ibn Sallām, Ṭabaqāt I, 19. 20 21

the background of the kitĀb

7

Sallām cites in support of his claim are discussed in the Kitāb and that Sībawayhi attributes some of their qirāʾāt to particular grammarians.27 Furthermore, if our earlier contention that Sībawayhi only indirectly criticizes certain qirāʾāt 28 is correct, his criticism may well provide evidence for an early attempt at distinguishing grammar from neighboring disciplines at a stage when it was so closely associated with other areas of study, including Qurʾānic reading. As a matter of fact, it is not long after Sībawayhi that the grammarians’ criticism of the qurrāʾ became more direct, and at times quite aggressive, perhaps in pursuit of Sībawayhi’s attempt to ascertain that the authority of grammar extends to the realm of qirāʾāt. For example, Farrāʾ (d. 207/822) attacks the Kufan reader Ḥ amza b. Ḥ abīb (d. 156/773) and accuses him of lack of insight into proper Arabic usage (qillat al-baṣar bi-mağārī kalām al-ʿArab).29 He also ridicules the muwalladūn readers who rely on an artificially acquired skill (ṣanʿa) because they lack the innate disposition of native speakers (ṭibāʿ al-Aʿrāb).30 An equally harsh criticism of the qurrāʾ is voiced by Māzinī (d. 248/863) who affirms that the qurrāʾ are incompetent in matters such as idġām (assimilation) and imāla (fronting and raising of ā/a towards ī/i),31 which are the very matters with which the qurrāʾ have to deal. Being the last statement in Māzinī’s Munṣif, this is meant to be the firm judgment or conclusion of a self-confident author who wants to assert the authority of the language experts (man qad naqqaba fī l-ʿArabiyya) as sole arbiters in linguistic matters. Other than qirāʾāt, various aspects of Islamic scholarship were naturally linked to the general linguistic activity which took place before the end of the second/eighth century. Most notable in this respect are the disciplines of ḥ adīt̠, fiqh, and tafsīr. We have very little evidence

27 The verses in question are: yā laytanā nuraddu wa-lā nukad̠di̠ bu/a bi-āyāti rabbinā wa-nakūnu/a min al-muʾminīna (“Would that we were but sent back! Then would we not reject the Signs of our Lord, but would be amongst those who believe”; Q 6: 27; Kitāb III, 44); al-zāniyatu/a wa-l-zānī/wa-l-zāniya (“As to the woman and the man guilty of adultery”; Q 24: 2; Kitāb I, 143–144); wa-l-sāriqu/a wa-l-sāriqatu/a (“As to the thief, male or female”; Q 5: 38; Kitāb I, 143–144); hāʾulāʾi banātī hunna aṭharu/a lakum (“Here are my daughters: they are purer for you [if you marry]”; Q 11: 78; Kitāb II, 397); and yā ğibālu awwibī maʿahu wa-l-ṭayru/a (“O ye mountains! Sing ye back the Praises of God with him”!; Q 34: 10; Kitāb II, 187). The translation of these verses and of others to be cited is adopted from ʿAbdallāh Yūsuf ʿAlī’s interpretation of the Qurʾān. 28 Cf. Baalbaki (1985: 19, 21). 29 Farrāʾ, Maʿānī III, 266. 30 Ibid., II, 353. 31 Māzinī, Taṣrīf II, 340.

8

chapter one

of the status of ḥ adīt̠ in connection with the linguistic interest before the latter part of the second/eighth century. Although some later sources do indicate that early scholars, such as Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ (d. 154/770), have cited ḥ adīt̠ mostly for morphological data,32 it should be remembered that up to Sībawayhi’s times there had been no authoritative written collection of the sayings of the Prophet or those of his companions (at̠ar). This, and the fact that the transmission of ḥ adīt̠ material was not always faithful to its actual form (lafẓ),33 are probably the two most important factors in the grammarians’ prolonged lack of interest in ḥ adīt̠, particularly in their syntactical discussions.34 It should be noted, however, that a few hundred instances of ḥ adīt̠ and at̠ar do occur in Ḫ alīl’s (d. 175/791) Kitāb al-ʿAyn, but these are obviously cited for their lexical content and not for their syntactical structure. As far as Sībawayhi is concerned, the sources indicate that what triggered his interest in grammar is an error he made in reading a ḥ adīt̠ which the Basran muftī and muḥ addit̠, Ḥ ammād b. Salama (d. 167/784), dictated in his circle.35 Having heard Ḥ ammād relate the following ḥ adīt̠: laysa min aṣḥ ābī illā man law šiʾtu la-ah̠ad̠tu ʿalayhi laysa Abā l-Dardāʾi (“There is no companion of mine that I would not find fault with if I wanted except Abū l-Dardāʾ”), Sībawayhi volunteered to “correct” Ḥ ammād’s reading to laysa Abū l-Dardāʾi on the wrong assumption that laysa is a negative particle whose noun (ism) should be in the nominative. Having then realized his failure to note that laysa in this context is an exceptive particle which should be followed by the accusative, Sībawayhi vowed to seek a discipline (ʿilm) which would ensure that he would no longer be accused of linguistic error. Consequently, he studied naḥw under Ḫ alīl b. Aḥmad, Yūnus b. Ḥ abīb, ʿĪsā b. ʿUmar and others, and authored his Kitāb, as the riwāya has it. Regardless of the issue related to the authenticity of this riwāya, one cannot but notice that it is reminiscent of the 32 Cf. Abū ʿUbayda, Mağāz I, 373–374, and two other examples cited by Ḥ adītī̠ (1981: 42–46). 33 See Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna I, 9–15 for a discussion of the effect this issue has on in the transmission of ḥ adīt̠. 34 Apart from scattered examples, the grammarians largely abstained from using ḥ adīt̠ as a source of data or as a basis for syntactical analysis roughly until the sixth/ twelfth century. While most grammarians upheld that tradition, authors like Suhaylī (d. 581/1185), Ibn Ḫ arūf (d. 609/1212) and Ibn Mālik (d. 672/1274) were among the first to break up with it. 35 Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 66; Marzubānī, Muqtabas 95; Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 54–55. Another ḥ adīt̠ in which Sībawayhi allegedly made an error is mentioned, along with the one quoted above, in Zağğāğī, Mağālis 118.

the background of the kitĀb

9

previously quoted anecdotes which attribute to Abū l-Aswad al-Duʾalī, once he encountered laḥ n, the intention of amending the speech of the Arabs. Moreover, just as an error in reciting the Qurʾān is linked in the anecdotes on Abū l-Aswad to the beginning of grammatical activity, an error in narrating ḥ adīt̠ is linked in the anecdote on Sībawayhi to his interest in grammar and his subsequent authorship of the Kitāb. This notwithstanding, the number of ḥ adīt̠s cited by Sībawayhi in the Kitāb is seven or eight36 according to Hārūn’s indices, or twelve at best according to another enumeration,37 and the fact that Sībawayhi’s narration of these ḥ adīt̠s does not exactly match their wording in the later canonical sources is a stern reminder of the grammarians’ cautious attitude towards ḥ adīt̠ because it was not always transmitted verbatim. The interrelatedness between grammar and both fiqh (jurisprudence) and tafsīr (Qurʾānic exegesis) is also clear in the early grammatical activity leading to Sībawayhi’s Kitāb. With regard to fiqh, Carter argues that the origins of Arabic grammar can be traced in the Islamic science of law since the latter’s essential principles had already been established by Sībawayhi’s time.38 According to this view, Sībawayhi can be credited with organizing the linguistic data into a juridical corpus. Perhaps the strongest argument in support of this view is the terminology used by Sībawayhi,39 in particular (a) that his four criteria of linguistic correctness are expressed by the ethical terms ḥ asan (good), qabīḥ (bad), mustaqīm (right), and muḥ āl (wrong); (b) that the two notions of manzila (status) and mawḍiʿ (function; lit. place)—both of which are inseparable from qiyās (analogy), itself a juridical method—occur both in legal and grammatical contexts; and (c) that a large number of important grammatical terms—such as badal (substitute), ʿiwaḍ (compensation), šarṭ (condition), laġw (slip of language), saʿat al-kalām (extension/latitude

36 One of these ḥ adīt̠s is quoted in two different versions, hence the two different possible enumerations. See Hārūn’s indices in Kitāb V, 32. 37 Ḥ adītī̠ (1981: 50–78, esp. 77). 38 Carter (1972a: 92). In another article, Carter (1983: 65–84) expands his “legal thesis” by demonstrating how the grammarians assertively tried to regulate human linguistic behavior as lawyers tried to regulate human behavior in other domains. Carter (1991b: 9) also asserts that “grammar has no meaning if it cannot be related to the practicalities either of Islamic doctrine or the power and influence of the grammarians in Islamic society. In short, grammar has to be considered a branch of ethics, as it was, for example, in medieval Christianity”. See also Larcher (2000: 312–318) for further consideration of the relationship between the grammatical tradition and other Islamic sciences, including fiqh. 39 Carter (1972a: 83–86); cf. Carter (1973a: 146–157, esp. 147–150).

10

chapter one

of speech), h̠iyār (choice), ḥ add (limit), ḥ uğğa (argument), aṣl (origin; primary usage), dalīl (evidence), and niyya (intention)—can best be understood in light of their employment in legal contexts. But in spite of the strength of the terminological arguments upon which the “legal thesis” is based, it should be remembered that the grammatical terms cited by Carter are almost exclusively methodical, rather than categorical ones,40 and that the origin of numerous other terms may well lie in the realm of Qurʾānic exegesis. In this respect, Versteegh finds evidence which points to the importance of the earliest commentaries on the Qurʾān as the original form of language study in Islam, his most compelling argument also having to do with terminology.41 His main thesis is based on the conviction that after the death of the Prophet, all scholarly activities focused on the text of the Qurʾān, and that there was no separation in the earliest commentaries between the various aspects of Islamic scholarship, including historical narrative, legal application, theology, lexicography and grammar. The earliest extant commentaries which Versteegh examines are the ones by Muğāhid b. Ğabr (d. 104/722), Zayd b. ʿAlī (d. 122/740), Muḥammad b. al-Sāʾib al-Kalbī (d. 146/763), Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767), and Sufyān al-T̠awrī (d. 161/ 778). His terminological evidence includes “Muqātil’s terminology for textual types and the connectors he uses to structure the text, such as ah̠bara, naʿata; Muḥammad al-Kalbī’s terminology for alternative readings; the terminology to refer to speech units (kalima, luġa, kalām, qawl); and the general terminology of meaning (maʿnā, yaʿnī)”.42 Such terms, he argues, provide the link between everyday vocabulary and the later technical terminology. Among the more obvious examples of development from non-technical to technical terminology are: h̠abar (predicate), naʿt (attribute), istit̠nāʾ (exception), ğaḥ d (negation), māḍī (past tense), mustaqbal (future tense), ism (noun), istifhām (question), taʿağğub (admiration), waṣafa/ṣifa (to describe/attribute), ṣila (connection), maʿṭūf (connected), badal (apposition), iḍmār (deletion), and ğawāb (apodosis).43 40

Cf. Versteegh (1993: 35). Versteegh (1990: 1993). 42 Versteegh (1993: 196). 43 In light of the evidence furnished by the terminology of early Qurʾānic commentaries, the view which ascribes to Greek influence the emergence of Arabic grammar has to be revised. Versteegh (1993: 196), himself an earlier proponent of the “Greek thesis”, concluded that “the earlier hypothesis of a Greek origin for certain terms was rendered inoperative on the basis of the data in the early commentaries”. For a discus41

the background of the kitĀb

11

3. Grammarians Cited in the Kitāb Unlike the largely unverifiable reports of the biographical sources concerning the grammatical activity of Abū l-Aswad and his contemporaries, the Kitāb is the source of most of the reliable material which we possess on pre-Sībawayhian grammatical activity of the second/eighth century. Sībawayhi mentions about twenty individuals, either as predecessors who we know that he never met, or as contemporaries in their capacity as informants or teachers.44 The linguistic interests of these scholars broadly represents two closely related but equally distinct, though not mutually exclusive, areas of study, luġa (philology, lexicography) and naḥw (grammar).45 By and large, the luġawiyyūn were philologists or lexicographers who, rather than addressing themselves to grammatical study per se, explored issues related to the collection of linguistic data, word meanings in attested material, and dialectal variations particularly in the realm of ġarīb (strange usage). Within the broader context of the Arabic linguistic tradition, this line of enquiry may be identified with the field of fiqh al-luġa (philology) which later emerged in works like al-Ṣāḥ ibī by Ibn Fāris (d. 395/1004) and al-Muh̠aṣsạ ṣ by Ibn Sīda (d. 458/1066), as well as with lexical compilations arranged according to subject (e.g. plants, animals, natural phenomena, weapons, etc.), or according to the forms or roots of words. The naḥwiyyūn, or grammarians, on the other hand, were mainly interested in describing and analyzing the syntactical structure of Arabic and the rules pertaining to morphology, morphophonology, and, to a lesser extent, phonetics. The early distinction between luġa and naḥw is apparent in the references which Sībawayhi makes to his predecessors and contemporaries alike, and serves as a helpful criterion for identifying the nature of the contribution of some of these individuals. Another major criterion is examining the data which Sībawayhi cites on the authority of his sources

sion of his argument that, since the Kufan tradition is directly related to the earlier exegetical tradition, the Basran tradition should be regarded as much more innovative than has been hitherto acknowledged, see Baalbaki (2007a: xxvi–xxvii). 44 Carter (2004: 16–32) identifies eight persons named in the Kitāb but not directly known to Sībawayhi, six persons also named in the Kitāb and directly known to him (including his two principal teachers, namely, Yūnus b. Ḥ abīb and Ḫ alīl b. Aḥmad), and six persons whose names are associated with the Kitāb (among whom are four whose names actually appear in the Kitāb or in prefaces to its manuscripts, and two whose names have become attached to the history of the Kitāb). 45 Cf. Baalbaki (2007a: xiii–xiv).

12

chapter one

is their use of qiyās as a method of grammatical analysis—an analytical technique which later became the backbone of grammatical activity. In fact, not only were the methods of pre-Sībawayhian grammarians often judged in the biographical sources with reference to their employment of qiyās, but modern attempts were also made to classify these grammarians according to the degree of their “strictness” in its application.46 Based on Sībawayhi’s material, the main figures of the intermediate stage which follows the biographical references to Abū l-Aswad and his contemporaries and precedes or is contemporary with the Kitāb are:47 1. ʿAbdallāh b. Abī Isḥāq (d. 117/735): There are seven mentions of him in the Kitāb,48 and these hardly substantiate the view that he represents a trend highly dependent on qiyās,49 or that he is the first grammarian who can be identified as “Basran”.50 As for the claim that he authored a book entitled Šarḥ al-ʿilal,51 it cannot be verified since

46 Perhaps the most well-known attempt of this kind is that which Anṣārī proposed in several works of his (1962a, b; 1973). He distinguishes three tendencies among grammarians up to and including Sībawayhi: (a) a tendency, represented by ʿAbdallāh b. Abī Isḥāq and ʿĪsā b. ʿUmar, which applies qiyās strictly even if this could lead to rejecting attested material or samāʿ; (2) a tendency, represented by Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ and Yūnus b. Ḥ abīb, which considers the native speaker as the unrivalled master of his own language and thus predominantly focuses on samāʿ and not on the prescriptive use of qiyās; and (3) a tendency, represented by Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi, which gives more prominence to qiyās than samāʿ, but, unlike the first tendency, does not reject attested material if it contradicts qiyās. Anṣārī’s attempt is flawed for two reasons. First, the material which we possess about the proponents of the first two tendencies is not only too meager compared to what we know about the methods of Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi, but it is mostly derived from later sources, and hence its authenticity may be questionable. The second reason is that Anṣārī fails to mention evidence which is not supportive of his views. Suffice it here to mention that on several occasions, the sources attribute to the representative of the second tendency, Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, the rejection of data attested through qirāʾa or samāʿ (e.g. Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 384; Zağğāğī, Mağālis 6, 120, 144), including a Qurʾānic reading by none other than ʿĪsā b. ʿUmar (Kitāb II, 397; cf. Ibn Sallām, Ṭabaqāt 20 and Zubaydī Ṭabaqāt 41), whom Anṣārī considers as a representative of the first tendency! 47 Cf. Baalbaki (1995a: 125–127; 2007a: xv–xvii). 48 For this and other statistics about grammarians mentioned in the Kitāb, see Troupeau (1976: 227–231). See also Reuschel (1959: 67–75); Troupeau (1961: 309–12); Hārūn’s indices to the Kitāb V, 181–196. 49 Anṣārī (1962b: 20). 50 Ḍ ayf (1968: 22) speaks of him as the master of the Basran school (ustād̠ al-madrasa l-Baṣriyya), and Belguedj (1973: 174) says, “on avait en effet quelques raisons de le présenter comme le premier grammarien ‘basrite’ ”. 51 Flügel (1862: 29); cf. Carter (2004: 18). It is possible that the expression šaraḥ a l-ʿilal (“expanded on causation”) which recurs in the sources (e.g. Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 31; Qifṭī, Inbāh II, 105; Suyūtị̄ , Buġya II, 42) was suggestive of this title.

the background of the kitĀb

13

the work is not mentioned in any source. In fact, the very alleged title of the book would be more appropriate of the fourth/tenth century onward than of this early stage. 2. ʿĪsā b. ʿUmar (d. 149/766): Based on the twenty references to him in the Kitāb—in some of which he is simply quoted as transmitting attested usage and in others as explaining the relationship between meaning and usage or commenting on operants—ʿĪsā cannot be considered as a representative of the qiyāsī trend52 in the same sense the term came to acquire with Sībawayhi and the later grammarians. Although one can detect in some of his ideas a tendency to compare two sentences or phrases and infer that one was given the same treatment as the other on the basis of their similarity,53 his ideas obviously lack the sophistication characteristic of later qiyās. As for the two books which the sources attribute to ʿĪsā, namely, Ikmāl54 and Ğāmiʿ, there is no reference to them in the Kitāb or any other grammatical work. The riwāya which claims that Mubarrad (d. 285/898) said that he had read a few pages (awrāq) of one of them but did not specify which one55 is therefore doubtful, particularly because Mubarrad is reported to have described what he read as a kind of reference to the fundamentals of grammar (ka-l-išāra ilā l-uṣūl), a concept which could have hardly been used as early as ʿĪsā’s time, at least in the sense which uṣūl assumed as of the third/ninth century. The two alleged titles may well be a later invention as part of the effort to establish a Basran grammatical pedigree and attribute to it works which predate the Kitāb. 3. Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ (d. 154/770): In his biographical dictionary which lists luġawiyyūn and naḥ wiyyūn under separate headings, Zubaydī places Abū ʿAmr with both groups.56 However, evidence from the Kitāb, in which he is quoted fifty-seven times, suggests that the term luġawī is far more applicable to him than the term naḥwī. He is quoted—frequently on the authority of Yūnus b. Ḥ abīb or

This is contrary to Ḍ ayf ’s (1968: 25) interpretation of ʿĪsā’s views. See, for example, Kitāb II, 112, where he allows the accusative in hād̠ā awwalu fārisin muqbilan by comparing it with the accusative in hād̠ā rağulun munṭaliqan, and II, 203 where he reads yā Maṭaran in a line of poetry and attributes the accusative in the proper noun Matạ r to analogy since its nunation is comparable to that of rağulan. 54 Also referred to as Mukmal by Abū Ṭāhir, Ah̠bār 33. 55 Abū l-Ṭayyib, Marātib 46. 56 Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 35, 159. 52 53

14

chapter one

Ḫ alīl b. Aḥmad—in relation to Qurʾānic readings,57 transmission of poetry,58 and usage by Arabs,59 in addition to some of his comments and views concerning luġa, rather than naḥw.60 4. Abū l-Ḫ at ̣ṭāb al-Ah̠faš al-Kabīr (d. 177?/793?): Although Zubaydī lists him under naḥwiyyūn, and not luġawiyyūn,61 the evidence furnished by the Kitāb suggests that the opposite is more likely to be true. There are fifty-eight mentions of him in the Kitāb, all, without exception, on matters related to luġa, not naḥw.62 Eight of these mentions are on lines of poetry, the rest being on prose material which Abū l-Ḫ aṭṭāb had heard from those Arabs whose Arabic is usually described by Sībawayhi as reliable or trustworthy (mawt̠ūq bi-ʿArabiyyatihim).63 5. Yūnus b. Ḥ abīb (d. 182/798): Sībawayhi quotes him two-hundred and seventeen times in the Kitāb, second only to Ḫ alīl (see below). Although he is frequently quoted as transmitter of usage,64 he is, apart from Ḫ alīl, the first grammarian in whose work a definite system of analysis can be discerned, sufficiently supported by textual evidence. His interest in dialects and lexicography may lend credence to the attribution of Kitāb al-Luġāt 65 to him, only the title of which is known to us. More important, however, are the features which seem to characterize his methods of grammatical analysis and which may be briefly summarized as follows: a. He makes extensive use of taqdīr (suppletive insertion) as an analytical tool in which elided parts, particularly ʿawāmil (operants), are theoretically supplied by the grammarian to explain

57 Kitāb II, 43, 210; III, 549; IV, 186, 202, 338, 459. The recurrence of citing Abū ʿAmr’s reading is obviously related to the fact that he was one of the seven authorized readers. 58 Ibid., II, 71; III, 68, 86. 59 Ibid., II, 161, 219, 393; III, 361, 549. 60 Ibid., I, 417; II, 96; III, 225, 253, 324, 508, 636; IV, 63. 61 Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 40. 62 Note also that the only mağlis in which Zağğāğī mentions Abū l-Ḫ aṭtạ̄ b is related to luġa (Mağālis 124). 63 Kitāb I, 79, 201, 304; II, 111, 329; III, 123, 219, 230. For the rest of the quotations, see Troupeau (1976: 227). 64 E.g. in Qurʾān (Kitāb I, 346; II, 41), poetry (ibid., I, 156, 259, 278, 319, 364, 416; II, 48, 72, 153, 247, 308; III, 37, 39, 135, 176 n. 4, 533, etc.), and prose (ibid., I, 51, 226, 347, 409, 416, 428; II, 27, 29, 63, 65, 83, 119, 143, 199, 209, 213, 214, etc.). He is also frequently quoted as transmitter of usage cited by Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ or views of his (ibid., I, 387, 405, 417; II, 96, 113, 161, 311, 396; III, 101, 242, 293, 303, 324, 347, 361, 457, 584). 65 Ibn al-Nādīm, Fihrist 48; cf. Sezgin (1984: IX, 312).

the background of the kitĀb

15

certain syntactical relationships. For example, he supplies tad̠kur and nağmaʿuhā to explain the accusative in man anta Zaydan and balā qādirīna (Q 75: 4) respectively.66 b. He often formulates grammatical “rules” of universal validity. Examples of this are his assertion that any noun made of two conjoined elements is a diptote,67 and that the diminutive (taḥ qīr) invariably reveals the original radicals of the word. 68 Generalizations of this type represent an essential step in the history of grammatical analysis since earlier grammarians were mainly concerned with particulars, rather than abstract rules which embrace these particulars. c. He often relies on anomalous examples in drawing conclusions or formulating rules. One example is his claim—based on the form manūna, the plural of the interrogative particle man, and on the construction ḍaraba mannun mannan, which he heard from an Aʿrābī (Bedouin)—that manah may be treated as declinable, like ayyah is, and thus it would be permissible to use the forms manatun, manatan and manatin.69 But in spite of Yūnus’s reliance on samāʿ and his unwillingness to dismiss usage which is only rarely attested,70 there are indications that he at times—like some members of the group which Sībawayhi calls the naḥwiyyūn (see below)—allowed forms which were not supported by samāʿ, such as iḍribān Zaydan and iḍribnān Zaydan.71 Contrary to the acceptance of such forms by Yūnus and others, Sībawayhi asserts that they have no parallels in the speech of the Arabs and thus effectively rejects them. d. He describes usage by employing terminology which is characteristic of Sībawayhi’s appraisal of his own data. Words like qabīḥ

66

Kitāb I, 292 and 346 respectively. See other examples in II, 71, 77, 237; III, 15. Ibid., III, 297. 68 Ibid., III, 369. 69 Ibid., II, 410–411; cf. Suyūṭī, Hamʿ II, 153. Similarly, Yūnus allows iyyāka Zaydan on the basis of a line of poetry which Ibn Abī Isḥāq is also reported to have admitted; see Kitāb I, 141 and Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 53. 70 There are cases in the Kitāb where Yūnus is reported to have rejected certain constructions, such as mā marartu bi-rağulin muslimin fa-kayfa rağulin rāġibin fī-lṣadaqati (where rağulin rāġibin is in the genitive; I, 435) and kam ġilmānan laka instead of kam laka ġilmānan (II, 159). It should be noted, however, that neither of the two examples—the second of which is also rejected by Ḫ alīl—is confirmed by Sībawayhi or other authors as having been actually attested in usage. 71 Kitāb III, 527. 67

16

chapter one (ugly), qalīl (infrequent), h̠abīt̠ (repugnant), kat̠īr (frequent), ğayyid (good), and wağh (correct or better usage) are explicitly ascribed to him by Sībawayhi.72 In other instances, it is not clear whether the same terms, or related ones such as ḍaʿīf (weak), are ascribed to Yūnus or are Sībawayhi’s own words.73

The analytical methods of Yūnus are obviously much more sophisticated than those of the earlier grammarians cited in the Kitāb. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Sībawayhi often asks him questions on specific issues74 and critically assesses his ideas—at times concurrently with those of Ḫ alīl’s75—either to approve of them or to criticize or even reject them. More will follow on Yunūs, as one of two formative teachers of Sībawayhi, under the next heading. 6. al-Ḫ alīl b. Aḥ mad (d. 175/791): With the possible exception of Yūnus, Ḫ alīl’s role in the Kitāb is unique in being an integral part of the whole work. Sībawayhi’s six-hundred and eight references to him—often accounting for the material of whole chapters—prove without doubt that he was his principal and most influential teacher. The sources frequently point out Ḫ alīl’s influence on the Kitāb. For example, Sīrāfī says that most of the Kitāb’s accounts or quotations (ʿāmmat al-ḥ ikāya) are taken from Ḫ alīl,76 and Rāzī asserts that Sībawayhi assembled (ğamaʿa) in his book all the data (ʿulūm) which he had learnt from Ḫ alīl.77 This teacher-student relationship is evident throughout the Kitāb, and particularly in the questions which Sībawayhi frequently addresses to his teacher and in those passages where a virtual dialogue takes place between the two men. It may be safely assumed that Sībawayhi’s analytical tools for the most part can be traced back to Ḫ alīl. The countless examples in the Kitāb of Ḫ alīl’s use of such notions as ʿāmil (operant), ʿilla (cause), qiyās (analogy), aṣl (origin), etc. leave no doubt that Ḫ alīl’s level of sophistication

72

Ibid., II, 120, 205, 227; III, 339, 409. Ibid., I, 262, 389. 74 Ibid., II, 63, 414; III, 355. See also Makram (1977: 384–387) for Sībawayhi’s use of words such as ḥ addat̠anā, ah̠baranā, and zaʿama in referring to Yūnus. 75 As, for example, in Kitāb III, 51, 439; IV, 184 (cf. Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ IX, 75). 76 Sīrāfī, Ah̠bār 40; cf. Suyūtị̄ , Buġya I, 558. 77 Suyūtị̄ , Iqtirāḥ 206. 73

the background of the kitĀb

17

in grammatical analysis is not matched by that of any other grammarian quoted in the Kitāb. The amount of data which Sībawayhi reports on the authority of Ḫ alīl is overwhelming, particularly at the lexical, morphological and syntactical levels, not to mention the fact that some of the unattributed material in the Kitāb originates from Ḫ alīl.78 Furthermore, the comparison made by Talmon between Kitāb al-ʿAyn, which is attributed to Ḫ alīl, and Sībawayhi’s Kitāb, reveals that, especially in the passages in which the two texts expressly cite Ḫ alīl, there is evident agreement in content.79 But Sībawayhi’s intellectual independence is asserted by his disagreement with Ḫ alīl on several occasions.80 Also significant is the fact that in the final parts of his Kitāb in which he deals with phonetic/phonological issues, Sībawayhi does not quote Ḫ alīl. Accordingly, much of Ḫ alīl’s technical vocabulary, which is known to us from the introduction of Kitāb al-ʿAyn and Azharī’s (d. 370/980) Tahd̠īb al-luġa, is not used by Sībawayhi.81 Such disagreement, however, ought not to obliterate the fact that it would be practically impossible to examine the analytical system of either Ḫ alīl or Sībawayhi in isolation of the other. As the principal source of inspiration to Sībawayhi, Ḫ alīl’s contribution to the Kitāb is so essential that one is given to doubt whether Sībawayhi would have authored such an impressive opus without it. Conversely, to Sībawayhi goes the credit of preserving the data which he assembled from Ḫ alīl (and other grammarians) and putting it into a meaningful whole, a book which not only records or describes usage, but also justifies it and analyzes the social, psychological and pragmatic aspects of communication. It is clear from the above that Yūnus and Ḫ alīl, though to different degrees, were Sībawayhi’s most influential teachers. Carter believes that Sībawayhi “received his tuition almost exclusively from Khalīl and Yūnus” and that “there was no grammar before Sībawayhi encountered

78

Cf. Talmon (2003: 5–6). Talmon (1997: 215–259). 80 For example, he dismisses Ḫ alīl’s claim that the particle lan which causes the subjunctive is the result of merger between lā and an (III, 5). He also prefers Yūnus’s opinion to that of Ḫ alīl’s regarding Aʿšā’s line in tarkabū . . . aw tanzilūna (III, 50–51). See also Talmon (2003: 6) for other instances of disagreement between Sībawayhi and Ḫ alīl. 81 Cf. Versteegh (1993: 16) and Troupeau (1958: 180–81). Note that Ḫ awārizmī’s (d. 387/997) Mafātīḥ al-ʿulūm also contains Ḫ alīl’s phonological terms and that these differ considerably from the terms used by Sībawayhi. For the difference between the two men concerning articulators and places of articulation, see al-Nassir (1993: 14–17). 79

18

chapter one

his two great masters”.82 As for the opinions of later grammarians, Carter argues that either Sībawayhi or his two teachers must have transmuted them into grammatical form and provided them with the required technical terms. But even if Sībawayhi and his two teachers are to be credited with such major contribution to grammar, it would still be an exaggeration to deny the existence of grammar before them, unless grammar strictly refers to the complex analytical system which the Sībawayhian model presents. This notwithstanding, Carter’s position on the number of Sībawayhi’s teachers is supported by the finding of Humbert in her study of the manuscript tradition of the Kitāb.83 One of the manuscripts is written by Ibn Ḫ arūf (d. between 605/1209 and 610/1213) who relies on a note found in a copy of the Kitāb derived from Abū Naṣr Hārūn b. Mūsā (d. 401/1010). According to this note, and contrary to the biographical sources, Sībawayhi had only two “real” teachers, Ḫ alīl and Yūnus (wa-muʿallimā Sībawayhi l-Ḫ alīl wa-Yūnus). This and the fact that the note mentions the names of five grammarians who are cited by Sībawayhi but do not feature in the printed editions of the Kitāb serve as a reminder of the difficulties that are encountered by researchers when they try to examine the link between the Kitāb and earlier scholars. Apart from the individual grammarians referred to in the Kitāb, Sībawayhi collectively refers to an anonymous group which he calls naḥwiyyūn twenty-one times.84 The exact meaning of this term has been hotly debated, particularly since the role of this group is crucial to our understanding of the early development of Arabic grammar. Sībawayhi almost invariably opposes the views expressed by the naḥwiyyūn, and at times even the views of his teacher, Yūnus, when he sides with them.85 Sībawayhi’s opposition to the naḥwiyyūn is largely due to his disapproval of the artificial and speculative nature of their methods. In particular, it seems that their interest in the structural regularities of Arabic prompted them to create forms and constructions which may well be compatible with their analysis, but which do not occur in speech.86 To Sībawayhi,

82

Carter (1968: 17). Humbert (1995: 9 ff.; see also 255–256 for the Arabic text referred to above). 84 Carter (1972a: 76, n. 1) and Talmon (1982: 14–15; 2003: 12 where twenty-eight loci of controversy with the naḥwiyyūn are identified in the Kitāb). 85 Kitāb II, 21; III, 527. 86 Examples include wayḥ un lahu wa-tabbun and tabban laka wa-wayḥ an (I, 334), marartu bi-rağulin asadin šiddatan wa-ğurʾatan (I, 434), and aʿṭāhūka and aʿṭāhūnī (II, 364). 83

the background of the kitĀb

19

this approach violates the essence of his grammatical analysis which is solely based on the actual speech of the Arabs. Even when he analyzes syntactical relationships and proposes constructions to interpret attested speech, Sībawayhi, in contrast to the speculative approach of the naḥwiyyūn, warns his readers that the proposed constructions are merely illustrative in nature and are not attested in the speech of the Arabs (wa-hād̠ā tamt̠īl wa-lā yutakallam bihi).87 Carter, who was the first to examine thoroughly the meaning of the term naḥ wiyyūn,88 believes that the term is not a translation of the term grammatikoi, and that since the term naḥw in the Kitāb never denotes “grammar”, but rather “façon de parler” (a way of speaking), the naḥwiyyūn to whom Sībawayhi refers are “les gens concernés par la façon de parler”. According to Carter, members of this group—who were probably contemporaries of Sībawayhi—were familiar with the basic descriptive terminology of grammar, but used an extremely primitive methodology, particularly in their application of qiyās. In spite of Sībawayhi’s opposition to naḥwiyyūn’s views, Carter believes that he inherited some of their notions which are preserved in the first chapters of the Kitāb. Carter concludes that the naḥwiyyūn represent a stage which precedes systematic grammar as represented by Sībawayhi and his circle of teachers. This interpretation of the term naḥwiyyūn has been attacked by Talmon89 who believes that Sībawayhi criticized them for their construction of complex utterances which would not be approved by native speakers, and for their misunderstanding of inflectional rules in their analysis of several structures. In spite of such criticism, Talmon argues that Sībawayhi does not reject their general principles of grammatical analysis and concludes that his acceptance of their assumptions in the formulation of his own grammatical theories shows that he founded his grammatical system on the groundwork of a fairly advanced school of grammar. Whatever the case may be, it should

87 In the construction lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī, for example, Sībawayhi (III, 28) says that the meaning is equivalent to laysa yakūnu minka ityānun fa-ḥ adīt̠un, but asserts that this is simply an illustration which clarifies the meaning and the use of the subjunctive verb, although it does not occur in actual speech. 88 Carter (1972a: 76 ff.). See also Baalbaki (2007a: xvii–xviii). 89 Talmon (1982: 12–38). Versteegh (1983: 146) concludes that “there is no distinction between a theoretically oriented group of specialists, on the one hand, and Sībawayhi’s amateur colleagues, on the other, as posited by Carter. Consequently, the difference between the analogistic reasoning of the naḥwiyyūn and the non-technical discussions of Sībawayhi’s named predecessors is non-existent”.

20

chapter one

be noted that there are in the Kitāb numerous references of the type zaʿamū or qāla nās (“it was claimed that”, etc.), and if these are taken to be references to the naḥwiyyūn, they should form an integral part of the contribution of this group to early grammatical thinking. The main problem, however, remains the fact that there is very little contemporary material outside the Kitāb to assist researchers of such issues. An interesting parallel to the naḥwiyyūn may be suggested from outside the Kitāb. This is the reference which Ḫ alīl makes to a similarly anonymous group which he calls the naḥ ārīr (pl. of niḥ rīr, skillful or learned).90 Ḫ alīl accuses the naḥ ārīr of creating words which do conform to Arabic word composition and patterns (ašbaha lafẓahum wa-taʾlīfahum), but which are neologisms (muwalladāt; cf. muḥ dat̠a, mubtadaʿa) that are not permissible (lā tağūz) in the speech of the Arabs. The examples given by Ḫ alīl of such coined words are kašaʿt̠ağ h̠aḍaʿt̠ağ and kašaʿṭağ which are quinqueliterals void of any laminal or labial sounds (ḥ urūf al-d̠alaq wa-l-šafawiyya), and hence violate the rules of word composition in Arabic which stipulate that all quadriliterals and quinqueliterals must include one or more laminal or labial sounds. Even if such coined words resemble Arabic words which have a similar pattern (cf. our examples safarğal and ġaḍanfar of the pattern faʿanʿal), Ḫ alīl believes that they should be rejected on the basis of their inconsistency with actual usage. Although we lack further references to the naḥ ārīr, they do share with Sībawayhi’s naḥwiyyūn the use of qiyās in order to analogically create forms which are never used in actual speech. It was thus natural that both Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi should reject such attempts given that both authors were interested only in kalām al-ʿArab. In the case of Ḫ alīl, this was a precondition for compiling his pioneering dictionary which he obviously wanted to be exhaustive, yet restricted to Arabic usage.91 Similarly, Sībawayhi’s mistrust of the naḥwiyyūn stems from his insistence that linguistic data should be restricted to what is attested and should exclude what is analogically created but not actually used, irrespective of its intended resemblance to actual usage.

Ḫ alīl, ʿAyn I, 52–53. Cf. the expression ḥ attā nastawʿib kalām al-ʿArab al-wāḍiḥ wa-l-ġarīb (“so that we exhaust what is clear and what is strange in the speech of the Arabs”; ʿAyn I, 60). Other characteristics of Arabic mentioned by Ḫ alīl is that no Arabic word begins with nara- (I, 53; i.e. with n and r as radicals) and that ḍ cannot precede k directly without the intervention of one or more radicals as in ḍank and ḍaḥ ik, except in reduplicated forms such as ḍakḍāka (I, 56). 90

91

the background of the kitĀb

21

Talmon recently examined the significance of the formative period of grammar before Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi by using extensive textual analysis to assess the real contribution of pre-Ḫ alīlian and non-Ḫ alīlian grammarians and to determine in which ways Sībawayhi’s Kitāb represents an innovative approach to grammatical study.92 He compared the grammatical teaching of Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi, which was largely adopted by later authors, with the extra-Kitābian linguistically oriented sources of the second/eighth and third/ninth centuries. Talmon’s main hypothesis is that the bulk of grammatical theory in the Kitāb does not reflect the early stage of the development of this field, but rather that it is a modified version of that stage, dominated by Ḫ alīl’s and Sībawayhi’s innovations. According to him, these two grammarians considered their teaching distinct from the mainstream grammatical theory up to their time, that is, the old tradition which he calls “The Old Iraqi School of Grammar”. Farrāʾ (d. 207/822) is portrayed as the main Kufan exponent of the Old Iraqi School’s teaching, but since the two Basrans, Abū ʿUbayda (d. 209/824) and al-Ah̠faš al-Awsat ̣ (d. 215/830), represent a grammatical tradition which is not identical with Sībawayhi’s, Talmon concludes that the non-Sībawayhian tradition was not restricted to the Kufan milieu, but was all-Iraqi. The innovative teaching of Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi eventually gained support in the grammarians’ circles in Basra and Baghdad, and, as Talmon puts it, “became the mainstream of Arabic grammar and grammatical thinking and was retrospectively identified as an integral part of the general development of eighth-century Basran grammar, as against the Kufan stream”.93 The pre-Ḫ alīlian grammar, or the Old Iraqi School, was erroneously identified, according to Talmon, only with Kufan grammar. As I noted in reviewing Talmon’s book,94 his findings can be best appreciated if perceived within the framework of a working hypothesis which we should not unduly expect to yield any definitive results. Low expectations are inescapable due to the scarcity of genuine sources from the period, and Talmon could only build his case on scarce and often contradictory material. Ironically, he is right in examining only the genuine available sources from the second/eighth and third/ninth centuries, but this is specifically why this hypothesis—or, for that matter,

92 93 94

Talmon (2003). See also Baalbaki’s (2005c: 413–416) review of Talmon’s book. Talmon (2003: 282). Baalbaki (2005c: 414).

22

chapter one

any other—becomes vulnerable. In an earlier study,95 I examined the Basran-Kufan controversies in light of those early sources. I still maintain that this is the only academically sound way to study the formative period of grammar, but I equally insist that one should not exaggerate the results which these sources may yield. Talmon does acknowledge that the corpus of material presented in the sources is of “fragmentary character” and does not favor a “well-rounded reconstruction” of the teaching of the Old Iraqi School.96 On various occasions he talks of the “absence of concrete textual evidence”, of the “limited corpus of available data”, and of the data being “too meager for definite conclusions”.97 Yet, his hypothesis claims a global interpretation of the grammatical activity and the relations among the grammarians in the early period of the development of Arabic grammar. Even if we were to acknowledge the “innovations” or “reformation” which Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi, according to Talmon, have introduced to grammatical study, it would certainly remain an exaggeration—as far as our present knowledge of the field goes—to talk of a Ḫ alīlian or Sībawayhian “revolution”.98 Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that Talmon’s attempt at identifying grammarians with a specific trend or “school” at this early stage often leads to contradictions. For example, Farrāʾ, who is portrayed by Talmon as “an heir of the grammatical teaching of the naḥwiyyūn” and as “a loyal exponent of the Old Iraqi School teaching”,99 at times argues “unlike the naḥwiyyūn”, shares views with Sībawayhi, is influenced by Ḫ alīl’s teaching, and even criticizes his own teacher, Kisāʾī, and is inspired by Sībawayhi regarding a point in which the latter attacks the whole body of naḥwiyyūn!100 Moreover, al-Ah̠faš al-Awsat,̣ who like Farrāʾ “adopts the doctrine of the Old Iraqi School in his treatment of various grammatical points” as demonstrated by “the confrontation between his Maʿānī and the Kitāb”, holds some views which are totally different from Farrāʾ’s.101 Similar disagreements between Farrāʾ and Abū ʿUbayda, and especially the indirect derogatory reference to Abū ʿUbayda by Farrāʾ accusing him of having “no knowledge of Arabic (grammar)”,102 make

95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

Baalbaki (1981: 1–26). Talmon (2003: 162–163). Ibid., 254, 260, 159 respectively. Ibid., xiv, 38, 163. Ibid., xi and 143 (cf. 38, 140) respectively. Ibid., 141, 142 (cf. 159), 143, 137 respectively. Ibid., 152, 154. Ibid., 155.

the background of the kitĀb

23

one wonder whether such differences are merely “nuances in a single framework”. The scarce and inconsistent nature of the information provided by the extant sources of the second/eighth and third/ninth centuries is thus hardly supportive of any theory which tries to explain with reasonable precision either the theoretical bases of the differences which exist among the grammarians who allegedly belong to a tradition which is not identical with Sībawayhi’s, or the so-called “innovations” which Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi are thought to have introduced to grammatical study. Of course, the system of grammatical analysis in the Kitāb represents a major development if compared with the formative stage preceding Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi. It is far less certain, however, whether the theoretical differences between these two grammarians, on the one hand, and the naḥwiyyūn and several other grammarians (including Farrāʾ, Abū ʿUbayda, al-Ah̠faš al-Awsaṭ, and even Sībawayhi’s teacher, Yūnus), on the other, justify drawing any conclusions related to grammatical “traditions” or “schools” at this stage. It would be equally unjustified and premature to speak of a distinct Basran/Kufan divide during the second/eighth century. In fact, there is only one instance of grammatical controversy between the Basrans and Kufans in Kitāb al-ʿAyn. The Kufans (ahl al-Kūfa) reportedly consider the pronoun in qaṭnī (“It suffices me”) as accusative, whereas the Basrans (ahl al-Baṣra) interpret it as genitive.103 Another relatively early text in which the Basrans are collectively mentioned concerning an unequivocally grammatical point is that in which the Kufan lexicographer Ibn al-Sikkīt (d. 244/858) quotes Kisāʾī’s (d. 189/805) view on the introduction of the definite article to compound numerals. Ibn al-Sikkīt maintains that “the Baṣriyyūn introduce the definite article (only) to the first part (of the compound numeral), thus saying mā faʿalat al-aḥ ada ʿašara alfa dirhamin”, in contrast to Kisāʾī who insists on the introduction of the article to all parts of the numeral as well as to what is enumerated (i.e. mā faʿalat al-aḥ ada l-ʿašara l-alfa l-dirhami).104 Such clear-cut opposition between the Basran and Kufan views is totally absent from the Kitāb. Sībawayhi does mention al-Kūfiyyūn or ahl al-Kūfa four times, three out of which are related to Qurʾānic readings. Only once does he comment on a

103 104

Ḫ alīl, ʿAyn V, 14. Ibn al-Sikkīt, Iṣlāḥ 302.

24

chapter one

Kufan reading, and then only to praise it as a luġa ğayyida.105 The sole instance in which Sībawayhi mentions the Kūfiyyūn on a matter not related to qirāʾāt is that in which he reports their view that the pattern fayʿil derived from medial weak verbs can only have the kasra following the ʿayn because the pattern was originally fayʿal with a fatḥ a, but was later changed.106 Although Sībawayhi contrasts this with Ḫ alīl’s view that faʿyal replaces (ʿāqabat) faʿyil in medial weak verbs, there is no indication of a partisan divide, particularly because Sībawayhi does not seem to favor any of the two opinions.107 Apart from Basra and Kufa, Talmon108 has suggested—based on scattered references to ahl al-Madīna and qurrā’ ahl al-Madīna in the authentic sources of the period including the Kitāb, and on “the few isolated details” mentioned in the biographical sources about grammatical activity there—that there was a short-lived grammatical school in Medina during the second/eighth century. But while there was certainly some grammatical activity in Medina at an early date, there is hardly any evidence to support the existence of a “grammatical school” there. 4. Grammatical Works Contemporary with the Kitāb Sībawayhi’s contemporaries as of the second half of the second/eighth century until the early third/ninth century 109 are credited with the collection of linguistic data from the Bedouin. This process of collection, known in the sources as ğamʿ al-luġa, provided a huge corpus for

105 Kitāb II, 399; III, 54; IV, 409, 477. See also Baalbaki (1981: 2–5). The Kufan reading on which Sībawayhi comments is Hārūn b. Mūsā’s (d. circa 170/786) reading of Q 19: 69; Kitāb II, 399. 106 Ibid., IV, 408–409. 107 It is not clear from the text whether Sībawayhi is in agreement with Ḫ alīl on this matter, for whereas he indicates that fayʿil has replaced (ʿāqabat) fayʿal, he attributes to Ḫ alīl the view that fayʿal has replaced (ʿāqabat) fayʿil. If the verb ʿāqaba here means “to replace”, then the origin which Sībawayhi proposes is different from Ḫ alīl’s, but if on the other hand it means “to alternate”, then it makes no difference in meaning whether fayʿil precedes fayʿal or vice versa. 108 Talmon (1985a: 224–236). 109 Sībawayhi most likely died around 180/796 at an age which varies in the sources from thirty-two (Baġdādī, Tārīḫ XII, 199) to forty or more (nayyif wa-arbaʿūna; Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist 57). His contemporaries thus include those as early as Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ (d. 154/770) and as late as Aṣmaʿī (d. 216/831)—who is quoted in the Kitāb (III, 68, 86) and who outlived Sībawayhi considerably and died at the age of ninetyone (Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 174)—and Ibn al-Aʿrābī (d. 231/845)—who died at the age of eighty-one (Anbārī, Nuzha 122).

the background of the kitĀb

25

lexicographers and grammarians alike. Among Sībawayhi’s contemporaries who made the journey to the desert (bādiya) to collect data from the Bedouin are Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ (d. 154/770), whose house was allegedly filled to its roof with books containing material he collected from eloquent Arabs (al-ʿArab al-fuṣaḥ āʾ);110 Ḫ alīl (d. 175/791), who is reported to have derived his knowledge from the deserts (bawādī) of Ḥ iğāz, Nağd and Tihāma;111 Yūnus (d. 182/798), who is said to have “heard” (samiʿa) the speech of the Arabs;112 Kisāʾī (d. 189/805), who reportedly depleted fifteen bottles of ink by writing data taken from the Arabs;113 al-Naḍr b. Šumayl (d. 203/819), who is said to have spent forty years in the desert;114 Abū ʿAmr al-Šaybānī (d. 206/821), who allegedly went to the desert with two vessels (distīğān) of ink and did not depart before depleting them in writing data;115 Abū Zayd al-Anṣārī (d. 215/830), who is reported to have extensively transmitted usage by the Bedouin;116 and Aṣmaʿī (d. 216/831), whose vast knowledge of luġa and riwāya is described as unmatched.117 The sources also tell us about eloquent ( fuṣaḥ āʾ) Bedouin who came to Basra, Kufa and Baghdad and were used by the lexicographers and grammarians as trustworthy informants.118 Some of those who settled in the then centers of learning even authored lexicographical works. The title Kitāb al-Nawādir, for example, is shared by several such authors, including Abū Misḥal119 (d. 231/845), Abū l-Maḍraḥī,120 and Qurayba Umm al-Buhlūl al-Asadiyya.121 As far as Sībawayhi is concerned, there is no mention in the sources of any journey he made to the desert to collect data from the Bedouin. But it is certain that he listened to Bedouin native speakers, as his frequent references to them indicate. He often asserts that he heard the Arabs (samiʿnā l-ʿArab) or the trustworthy Arabs (samiʿnā l-ʿArab al-mawt̠ūq

110

Qifṭī, Inbāh IV, 133. Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 59; Qifṭī, Inbāh II, 258. 112 Sīrāfī, Ah̠bār 33; Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 47; Suyūṭī, Buġya II, 365. 113 Qifṭī, Inbāh II, 258; Yāqūt, Muʿğam IV, 1738. 114 Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 73; Suyūtị̄ , Buġya II, 316. 115 Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 78; Qifṭī, Inbāh I, 259. 116 Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 166; cf. Marzubānī, Muqtabas 105. 117 Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 91. 118 See a list of such informants in Qifṭī, Inbāh IV, 120–123. See also the list prepared by Ᾱl Yāsīn (1980: 71–77). 119 His K. al-Nawādir was published by ʿIzzat Ḥ asan (see under “Bibliographical references”). See also Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist 52. 120 Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist 53; Qifṭī, Inbāh IV, 123. 121 Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist 53; Qifṭī, Inbāh IV, 121. 111

26

chapter one

bihim) use a certain form or construction. Such references are normally anonymous, but Sībawayhi exceptionally identifies his informant by name, as in his reference to an Aʿrābī called Abū Murhib.122 Of interest is the expression min afwāh al-ʿArab (“from the mouths of the Arabs”) which points toward direct contact with native speakers. At times, he also refers to what he heard from his Arab sources to support a certain Qurʾānic reading,123 or mentions that he checked with these sources concerning a specific construction.124 In addition to his direct sources, Sībawayhi amassed considerable material related to the speech of the Arabs from his teachers, particularly Ḫ alīl, whom he regularly quotes as a reliable source of information on correct usage. The testimony of the Kitāb as well as that of the biographical sources confirm the general interest during the second half of the second century and the early part of the third century A.H. in the collection of linguistic data through mušāfaha (“talking mouth to mouth”) with the Bedouin both in their own territories and in the centers of learning which they frequented. The extant sources authored by Sībawayhi’s contemporaries, as defined above, reflect this surge of interest in data collection and classification. Most of these belong to the lexicographical tradition although some of them incidentally touch upon grammatical issues. What they share with the Kitāb, however, is reliance, in addition to Qurʾān and poetry, on Bedouin speech as a major source of information. To mention but a few, the published sources include the two root-based lexica by Ḫ alīl (d. 175/791), Kitāb al-ʿAyn,125 and by Abū ʿAmr al-Šaybānī (d. 206/821), Kitāb al-Ğīm,126 and the thematically arranged lexicon of Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim b. Sallām (d. 224/838), al-Ġarīb al-muṣannaf.127 Less extensive works include Kisāʾī’s (d. 189/805) Mā talḥ an fīhi l-ʿawāmm,128 al-Naḍ r b. Šumayl’s (d. 203/819) al-Ḥ urūf,129 Qutṛ ub’s (d. 206/821) al-Aḍ dād130 and al-Mut̠allat̠āt,131 Farrāʾ’s (d. 207/822)

122

Kitāb I, 328. Ibid., III, 13. 124 Ibid., III, 22. 125 See under “Bibliographical references”. 126 Ed. by Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī et al., 3 vols. (Cairo, 1974–1975). 127 Ed. by Muḥammad al-Muḫtār al-ʿUbaydī, 3 vols. (Carthage, 1989–1996). 128 Edited, among others, by Ramaḍān ʿAbdaltawwāb (Cairo, 1982). One edition has been selected in this entry and in the next ones. 129 Ed. by Louis Šīḫō, in al-Bulġa fī šud̠ūr al-luġa (Beirut, 1908), 160–167. For the attribution of this short treatise to al-Naḍr, see Ᾱl Yāsīn (1980: 193–194). 130 Ed. by Hans Kofler, Islamica 5 (1931–1932), 241–284, 385–461, 493–544. 131 Ed. by Riḍā l-Suwaysī (Tunis, 1978). 123

the background of the kitĀb

27

al-Ayyām wa-l-layālī wa-l-šuhūr,132 Abū Zayd al-Anṣārī’s (d. 215/830) al-Nawādir fī l-luġa133 and al-Hamz,134 Aṣmaʿī’s (d. 216/831) al-Šāʾ,135 al-Ibil,136 al-Wuḥ ūš,137 al-Nabāt,138 al-Aḍdād,139 al-Ištiqāq,140 and Faʿala wa-af ʿala,141 Abū ʿUbayd’s al-Silāḥ ,142 Ibn al-Aʿrābī’s (d. 231/845) al-Biʾr,143 and Abū Misḥal’s (d. 231/845) al-Nawādir.144 To these may also be added several early works on proverbs—e.g. al-Mufaḍḍal al-Ḍ abbī’s (d. circa 170/786) Amt̠āl al-ʿArab,145 Muʾarriğ al-Sadūsī’s (d. 195/810) al-Amt̠āl,146 and Abū ʿUbayd’s al-Amt̠āl 147—on ġarīb (strange or unfamiliar) usage in the prophetic tradition—e.g. Abū ʿUbayd’s Ġarīb al-ḥ adīt̠148—and on bodily parts—e.g. Quṭrub’s al-Farq,149 and Aṣmaʿī’s Ḫ alq al-insān.150 There are two other groups of books which deserve special attention.151 The first comprises three linguistically-oriented exegetical works, namely, Farrāʾ’s (d. 207/822) Maʿanī l-Qurʾān, Abū ʿUbayda Maʿmar b. al-Mut̠annā’s (d. 209/824) Mağāz al-Qurʾān, and al-Ah̠faš al-Awsaṭ’s (d. 215/830) Maʿānī l-Qurʾān. These works do include a sizable body of grammatical material, and the views and terminology of their authors are extremely interesting to compare with the Kitāb. Yet, they can hardly be considered as grammar books, and it should always be remembered that they are structurally different from the Kitāb, for whereas the latter

132

Ed. by Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī (Cairo, 1956). See under “Bibliographical references”. 134 Ed. by Louis Šīḫō, al-Mašriq 13 (1910), 696–703, 750–757, 843–849, 907–915. 135 Ed. by Ṣāḥib al-Tamīmī (Beirut, 1987). 136 Ed. by August Haffner, in al-Kanz al-luġawī fī l-lasan al-ʿArabī (Beirut, 1903), 66–157. 137 Ed. by Ğalīl al-ʿAṭiyya (Beirut, 1989). 138 Ed. by ʿAbdallāh Yūsuf al-Ġunaym (Cairo, 1972). 139 Ed. by August Haffner, in Drei arabische Quellenwerke über die Aḍdād (Beirut, 1913). 140 Ed. by Salīm al-Nuʿaymī (Baghdad, 1968). 141 Ed. by ʿAbdalkarīm al-ʿIzbāwī, Mağallat al-baḥ t ̠ al-ʿilmī wa-l-turāt̠ al-Islāmī 4 (1401 A.H.), 467–527. 142 Ed. by Ḥ ātim Ṣāliḥ al-Ḍ āmin, 3rd ed. (Beirut, 1988). 143 Ed. by Ramaḍān ʿAbdaltawwāb (Cairo, 1970). 144 See above, n. 119. 145 Ed. by Iḥsān ʿAbbās (Beirut, 1981). 146 Ed. by Muḥammad Aḥmad al-Ḍ ubayb (Riyad, 1970). 147 Known to us through Abū ʿUbayd al-Bakrī’s (d. 487/1094) Faṣl al-maqāl fī šarḥ Kitāb al-Amt̠āl, ed. by Iḥsān ʿAbbās and ʿAbdalmağīd ʿĀbidīn, 2nd ed. (Beirut, 1971). 148 Ed. by Muḥammad ʿAbdalmuʿīn Ḫ ān (Hyderabad, 1964–1967). 149 Ed. by Ḫ alīl Ibrāhīm al-ʿAṭiyya (Cairo, 1987). 150 Ed. by August Haffner, in al-Kanz al-luġawī fī l-lasan al-ʿArabī (Beirut, 1903), 158–232. 151 Cf. Baalbaki (2007a: xxviii–xxix). 133

28

chapter one

offers a comprehensive and systematic study of grammar, their own grammatical content is determined by the Qurʾānic text which they try to interpret.152 Thus, even if these works can shed some light on the position of their authors vis-à-vis specific grammatical points which Sībawayhi deals with in the Kitāb, they fail to provide an opportunity for a meaningful comparison of his overall system of grammatical analysis with another sufficiently developed system that a researcher would have hoped to be present in these early sources. The other group basically includes two grammatical works that are attributed to contemporaries of Sībawayhi’s.153 These are al-Ğumal fī l-naḥw, which is attributed to Ḫ alīl, and Muqaddima fī l-naḥw, which is attributed to Ḫ alaf al-Aḥmar (d. 180/796). The first of these has been edited twice, but contrary to the claim of one of its editors, Faḫr al-Dīn Qabāwa, it can hardly be the work of Ḫ alīl.154 The other editor, Fāʾiz Fāris, convincingly argues the contrary due to the fact that the text of the book contains several quotations from later authors, such as Ibn Durayd (d. 321/933), as well as quotations from Ḫ alīl himself. In all likelihood, the book’s author is the Baghdadi grammarian Ibn Šuqayr (d. 317/929), as Ibn Misʿar al-Tanūh̠ī (d. 442/1050) asserts,155 and its title is al-Muḥ allā or Wuğūh al-naṣb, as in Fāris’s edition.156 Furthermore, the fact that the author sometimes uses terminology which is generally regarded as Kufan—e.g. ğaḥ d “negation” and ḫ afḍ “genitive”157—makes it unlikely that the book is the work of a Basran such as Ḫ alīl and strengthens its

152 Other than Kisāʾī, Farrā quotes 7 grammarians in his Maʿānī a total of seven times, whereas he quotes 64 readers by name a total of 1593 times; see Dévényi (1991: 160–161). This demonstrates that he was mainly interested in the grammatical issues related to the Qurʾān, unlike Sībawayhi who incorporated these issues into the wider framework of his study of linguistic usage in general. 153 Other relatively minor works which arguably fall into this category will not be discussed here because they belong to the domain of luġa. One example is Kitāb al-Ḥ urūf, which is attributed to none other than Ḫ alīl. This erroneous attribution is discussed by the editor of the work, Ramaḍān ʿAbdaltawwāb, in his introduction; see T̠alāt̠at kutub fī l-ḥ urūf (Cairo, 1982), 12–13. 154 Ryding (1992: 263 ff.) argues that the manuscripts which ascribe the book to Ḫ alīl must be followed since the arguments against this ascription are not convincing. 155 Tanūh̠ī, Tārīḫ 48. Tanūḫī notes that the book is sometimes mistakenly attributed to Ḫ alīl; cf. Yāqūt, Muʿğam I, 232; Suyūṭī, Buġya I, 302. 156 See the editor’s introduction (31–33) for a discussion of the book’s attribution to Ḫ alīl or Ibn Šuqayr. 157 It should be noted that ğaḥ d does occur, in addition to nafy, in Ḫ alīl’s ʿAyn (VIII, 321, 434, 435; cf. ğuḥ ūd VIII, 396)—although it is mostly a Kufan term—but ḫ afḍ does not. Neither term, however, is used by Sībawayhi.

the background of the kitĀb

29

attribution to Ibn Šuqayr who is said to have combined Basran and Kufan scholarship (yah̠liṭ ʿilm al-Baṣriyyīn bi-ʿilm al-Kūfiyyīn).158 The attribution of the second book, Muqaddima fī l-naḥw, to Ḫ alaf al-Aḥmar is also extremely doubtful, and is not supported by the later grammatical or biographical sources. In fact, Ḫ alaf ’s contribution was mainly in poetry transmission (riwāya) and, to a lesser extent, lexicography.159 Aṣmaʿī (d. 216/831), himself primarily recognized as a lexicographer, is nevertheless said to have been, by virtue of being a naḥwī as well, more knowledgeable in poetry than Ḫ alaf,160 the implication being that Ḫ alaf is not a naḥwī. More importantly, there are clues in the text of the Muqaddima which suggest that it belongs to a period considerably later than that of the Kitāb.161 The author, for instance, mentions grammatical principles or fundamentals (uṣūl al-naḥw),162 a term alien to grammatical study as we know it from the Kitāb and contemporary works. His arrangement of many parts of the book according to operants (ʿawāmil) is also untypical of the late second and early third centuries A.H. as is the mention of Basrans and Kufans in two places to contrast their terminology.163 But even if the book were to be considered roughly contemporaneous with the Kitāb, it is unmistakably different from it in aim, content and methods. After all, it is a pedagogical manual which attempts neither to be comprehensive nor to present a theory of grammatical analysis. The above discussion of the two groups of books which are either genuinely contemporaneous with the Kitāb, even if authored a few decades after it, or are claimed to be so, confirms that it is the first

158

Sīrāfī, Aḫbār 109. Note that Zubaydī (Ṭabaqāt 161) lists him under the luġawiyyūn and not the naḥwiyyūn. 160 Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 90–91. 161 Talmon (1990: 155–156) argues that the text of the Muqaddima may have been written by a contemporary of Sībawayhi, Farrāʾ and Abū ʿUbayda’s, but does not support its attribution to Ḫ alaf. He also concludes that at least one of its fragments was written after the year 204/820. 162 Ḫ alaf, Muqaddima 34. 163 The author contrasts the Kufan terms istītāʾ and īğāb with the Basran terms qaṭʿ (or iġrāʾ) and taḥ qīq respectively (ibid. 53, 80). Irrespective of the exact meaning of these terms, it should be noted that istītāʾ has a very good etymology for being equivalent to iġrāʾ (enticement) since the word literally means “to ask someone to come” and consequently indicates encouragement to do something. Accordingly, Talmon’s (1990: 148) suggestion of istiġnāʾ instead of istītāʾ is unjustified, particularly his intervention in the text in order to switch terms between Kufans and Basrans on the basis of alleged scribal error! 159

30

chapter one

unquestionably authentic book on Arabic grammar. Having questioned earlier the authenticity of the title attributed to ʿAbdallāh b. Abī Isḥāq (d. 117/735), Šarḥ al-ʿilal, and the two titles attributed to ʿĪsā b. ʿUmar (d. 149/766), Ikmāl and Ğāmiʿ,164 it should always be kept in mind that Sībawayhi himself does not make a single reference to an earlier work either in luġa or naḥw. This is to be taken as a strong indication of the absence of any such work during Sībawayhi’s lifetime, particularly because he explicitly quotes his teachers as well as earlier scholars and gives them credit for their transmission of data or for their views on a host of issues. Hence, there is no reason to suppose that he deliberately avoids mention of earlier works. Had these been in existence, they would have mostly likely been mentioned by him. Of course, the Kitāb does not emerge from vacuum. It builds on grammatical activity of which we have direct information from the Kitāb itself and indirect knowledge from later sources. It is, nevertheless, the first coherent and exhaustive description of Arabic grammar, especially syntax and morphology. It is also one of the earliest authored works in any Islamic discipline;165 that is, it is not the product of oral communication between a teacher and his disciples, but a real attempt at composing a coherent whole which has a beginning and an end, and which systematically examines the material defined by the discipline. The ultimate proof of this, as we shall see later,166 lies in the numerous cross-references which Sībawayhi makes throughout the Kitāb167 and the amazing consistency with which he analyzes, in separate parts of it, phenomena which he considers to be parallel or analogous.

164

Cf. above, 12–13. As far as Kitāb al-ʿAyn is concerned, it is most likely not to have been finished by Sībawayhi’s teacher, Ḫ alīl, and hence is most probably not the first proper book in the history of Arabo-Islamic sciences. Schoeler (2006: 162) rightly notes that since it was not finished by Ḫ alīl and “since the edited Kitāb al-ʿAyn only ‘appeared’ much later, this honor belongs to his student Sībawayhi”. 166 See chapter III, section 8. 167 A most telling phenomenon in this respect is that he alludes simultaneously to previous as well as to subsequent parts of the Kitāb, as in the case of partial analogy between two items (III, 278: wa-sa-tarā d̠ālika in šāʾa l-Lāh wa-minhu mā qad maḍā). 165

CHAPTER TWO

FUNDAMENTAL ANALYTICAL TOOLS IN THE KITĀB 1. Introduction The Kitāb is made up of two roughly equal parts. The first deals with naḥw, which, in addition to the general sense of “grammar”, more specifically refers to the syntactical relations among the various components of utterances and the declensional endings which are associated with these relations. In this part of the Kitāb, Sībawayhi’s linguistic analysis is far more vivid and engaging that in the rest of the book, chiefly because syntactical study is where Sībawayhi’s treatment of speech as a social activity and as interaction between a speaker and a listener is most visible. In contrast, ṣarf or “morphology” examines words in isolation of structure and includes derivational morphology as well as morphophonology. The description of the structure of words and the speculative study of the changes which were introduced to their supposed origins allegedly to justify actual usage obviously lack the dynamic nature of syntactical discussions and offer but limited opportunity for the author to express his views on matters which transcend the intricate morphological phenomena at hand. Given the difference between the wide scope of naḥw and the relatively narrow scope of ṣarf, it is only natural that the theoretical basis of ṣarf rests on a relatively small number of notions. Foremost among these are the patterns or the morphological forms of words which can be expressed by a certain wazn or measure (i.e. root plus vowels plus prefixes, infixes and suffixes), and a variety of morphological and morphophonological changes which affect words, such as ibdāl (substitution), iʿlāl 1 (vowel mutation), ziyāda (augmentation), ḥ ad̠f (omission), idġām (gemination), ilḥ āq (appending), waqf (pause), and imāla (fronting and raising of a long or short fatḥ a). Phonological issues are also treated under morphology—hence phonology does not

1 This term does not appear in the Kitāb but is implied in Sībawayhi’s discussion of vowel mutation. See, for example, ʿUḍayma’s (1975: 597–614) index of iʿlāl material in the Kitāb.

32

chapter two

represent an independent level—whereas phonetics are briefly discussed toward the end of the book.2 In what follows, we shall examine a few of the most basic analytical tools which Sībawayhi uses in the Kitāb. In spite of the differences mentioned above between syntax and morphology, there are common theoretical grounds between the morphological and morphophonological analysis of words and the syntactical analysis of sentences. Most of the analytical tools to be discussed below are thus applicable to sentence structure as well as to morphological patterns, as our examples will try to demonstrate. It must be stressed here that the study of Sībawayhi’s use of his own analytical tools would not have been possible had it not been for the consistency in which he used his technical terms throughout the Kitāb. This important feature of the book is one of Sībawayhi’s major contributions to the establishment of the “science of grammar” (ʿilm al-naḥw), which, like any other “science”, is conditional upon the existence of a set of clearly defined technical terms that are used with both precision and consistency. As Troupeau notes,3 the essential elements of Sībawayhi’s terminology have already been used by the generation of grammarians of the first half of the second/eighth century, as Sībawayhi’s own citations from these grammarians show. This notwithstanding, the Kitāb is the first source which offers the possibility of examining the precision and consistency of its use of grammatical terms. A detailed study of the technical terms in the Kitāb is outside the scope of this work, but on the whole it may be suggested that Sībawayhi’s use of technical terms represents a distinct stage between an earlier stage and a later one. Although a large portion of his terms was used by earlier grammarians, his terminology represents a significant departure from earlier usage. In particular, his systematization of the declensional scheme is in sharp contrast with the earlier lack of distinction between declensional vowels and other vowels.4 In the very first few lines of the Kitāb, Sībawayhi distinguishes between declensional vowels which are produced by a ʿāmil (operant, governor) and non-declensional vowels which are syntactically irrelevant. For the first type, he uses the term

2 See Levin (2000: 260–261) for a brief discussion of Sībawayhi’s phonetic description, particularly imāla, and Talmon (1997: 283–287) for the relations between the phonetic theories in the Kitāb and Ḫ alīl’s Kitāb al ʿAyn. 3 Troupeau (1976: 15). 4 See Talmon’s (2003: 239–244) comments on the iʿrāb marks and their terminology in the Kitāb and other early works.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

33

raf ʿ, naṣb, ǧarr and ǧazm, and for the second he uses ḍamm, fatḥ , kasr and waqf.5 Furthermore, one often detects in the Kitāb, and particularly in its first few chapters, the presence, side by side, of terms used in a general sense as well as in a purely technical sense. An example of this is the use of the term muḍāriʿ and its derivatives. In a quotation like wa-lil-af ʿāl al-muḍāriʿa li-asmāʾ al-fāʿilīn allatī fī awāʾilihā l-zawāʾid al-arbaʿ al-hamza wa-l-tāʾ wa-l-yāʾ wa-l-nūn,6 al-muḍāriʿa is obviously used to describe prefixed verbs and is not intended as a technical term. In other words, had it been replaced by a synonym such as (our) al-mušābiha, there would have been little change in meaning, and the reader would have hardly noticed any difference. Within a few lines of that quotation, however, the technical use of the term which refers to imperfect verbs appears in the expression al-muḍāriʿ min al-af ʿāl,7 and it would of course be totally absurd to suggest that this could be replaced by (our) al-mušābih min al-af ʿāl! Similar fluctuations can also be observed in the first few chapters of the Kitāb in the meaning of terms like ʿāmil, fāʿil, bināʾ, tamakkun, etc. Moreover, Mosel cites other examples of terms which retain their general or pre-technical meanings along with their technical usage.8 For instance, fiʿl denotes both “action” and “verb”, ḥ āl denotes both “condition” and “circumstantial accusative”, and ẓarf denotes both “circumstance” and “adverb”. This duality of usage, it must be noted, considerably weakens the assumption of a foreign origin of Arabic grammatical technical terms and testifies to the emergence of specialized terms through a process of abstraction which has its roots in the ordinary use of words that describe linguistic phenomena. Many of the terms which must have been current among earlier grammarians most probably underwent this process of abstraction as a result of Sībawayhi’s formulation of his thoughts and consequently gained the status of technical terms.

5 Note, however, that Sībawayhi at times does not apply this distinction and uses terms from the first set in lieu of the expected terms of the second set, as for example in wa-ʿalima l-Lāhu yantaṣib kamā yantaṣib d̠ahaba Zaydun (III, 30) and in the frequently used expression lā/li-allā yanǧazim ḥ arfāni (II, 322–324; III, 214, 319); cf. below, n. 216. 6 Kitāb I, 13. Guillaume (2004: 69) notes that it is never easy to distinguish unequivocally in the Kitāb between the technical and non-technical use of terms. 7 Ibid., I, 14. 8 Mosel (1975: 25 ff.). Also noteworthy, according to Mosel (ibid., 102 ff.), is that Sībawayhi often uses more than one term for the same category, such as ʿalāmat al-muḍmar, iḍmār, muḍmar, ḍamīr, ism muḍmar, etc. all of which stand for “pronoun”.

34

chapter two

Compared with later grammarians, Sībawayhi’s terminology may be characterized as having a “caractère primitif ”, as Troupeau puts it, based on the fact that, unlike those later grammarians, he does not utilize abstract adjectives and nouns. For example, he uses banāt al-t̠alāt̠a and banāt al-arbaʿa instead of the later terms t̠ulāt̠ī and rubāʿī to refer to triliterals and quadriliterals, and unlike the grammarians of the third/ ninth century onward does not derive gentilic adjectives from nouns, and hence does not use terms like ismī (nominal), fiʿlī (verbal), and waṣfī (qualificative) or the corresponding substantives with the feminine suffix -a, i.e. ismiyya, fiʿliyya and waṣfiyya.9 Also characteristic of Sībawayhi, as opposed to later grammarians, in his use of technical terms is the frequent use of one term for a general class as well as for a subclass. Owens exemplifies this phenomenon which he calls “class inclusion” by the term ṣifa which refers not only to the subclass of qualifiers, but also to other nominal complementary relations such as ḥ āl (circumstantial accusative) and tamyīz (specifier, a category implicitly distinguished by Sībawayhi).10 Such “class inclusion”, as Owens notes, becomes less prevalent in later works, and the development moves in the direction of the “one lexical class (or sub-class) one-term principle”.11 Ibn al-Sarrāğ (d. 316/929), for example, reserves the term ṣifa for qualifiers and uses tawābiʿ, instead of Sībawayhi’s ṣifa, for nominal complements with agreement. A striking feature of Sībawayhi’s terminology is that a sizeable number of grammatical terms which attained the level of standard usage in later works are nonexistent in the Kitāb. What later grammarians unanimously call ism al-āla (instrumental noun), for example, is referred to by Sībawayhi in a non-technical manner as mā ʿālağta bihi.12 In other cases, Sībawayhi uses lengthy expressions to clarify concepts for which he has no technical term. Thus what were later uniformly called nāʾib fāʿil (subject of a passive verb) and tanāzuʿ (conflict in government) are inconveniently referred to in the Kitāb respectively as al-maf ʿūl allad̠ī taʿaddāhu fiʿluhu ilā maf ʿūl 13 and (bāb) al-fāʿilayn wa-l-maf ʿūlayn allad̠ayn kull wāḥ id minhumā yaf ʿal bi-fāʿilihi mit̠l allad̠ī yaf ʿal bihi.14

9 10 11 12 13 14

Troupeau (1976: 14–15). Owens (1990: 55–102, esp. 65–66); cf. Carter (2004: 53–55). Owens (1990: 97). Kitāb IV, 94. Ibid., I, 41. Ibid., I, 73.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

35

Other terms which do not feature in the Kitāb include fakk al-idġām (diaeresis), ištiġāl (preoccupation, i.e. lack of “occupation” of a verb with its subject), ism maʿnā (abstract noun), ism ʿayn (concrete noun), ğumla (proposition), nāsiḫ (annuller), ağwaf (hollow), ṣīġa (form), šamsī (solar letter), qamarī (lunar letter), etc.15 Irrespective of Sībawayhi’s position between earlier and later grammarians vis-à-vis terminology and particularly the absence from the Kitāb of several terms which were standardized at a later stage, his use of technical terms—as will be shown in several later sections— provides the necessary condition for any study of his analytical tools and methods. Troupeau’s publication of his Lexique-index of the Kitāb, it must be noted, has considerably facilitated the study of Sībawayhian terminology and helped researchers demonstrate Sībawayhi’s conscious use of his technical terms, not only in referring to the various topics or abwāb which constitute the body of Arabic grammar, but also in his own description and analysis of attested material. 2. Samāʿ (Attested Data) Samāʿ represents the source from which linguistic data is derived. Strictly speaking, it is not an analytical tool, but the study of Sībawayhi’s handling of attested material reveals much about his analytical approach to the various genres which constitute this material. Sībawayhi expresses the notion of “attested usage” mostly by the verb samiʿa (to hear), and there is only a handful of occurrences of the substantives samāʿ and samʿ.16 But reported usage is not confined to those instances in which derivatives of the root smʿ occur since Sībawayhi often introduces his data by other expressions such as raʾaynā l-ʿArab, saʾalnā . . ., yaqūlūna, yuʾḫ ad̠ min al-ʿArab, min al-ʿArab man . . ., min kalām al-ʿArab, ḥ addat̠anā man yūt̠aq bihi, balaġanī ʿan al-ʿArab al-mawt̠ūq bihim annahum yaqūlūna, zaʿama lī baʿḍ al-ʿArab, saʾalnā l-ʿArab fa-wağadnāhum yuwāfiqūnahu, etc. in addition to the riwāyas which he reports on the authority of his teachers and other scholars. In short, the bulk of the Kitāb can be described as chiefly a body of

15

Cf. Ḍ ayf (1968: 61–62) and Troupeau (1976: 19–24). According to Troupeau’s index (1976: SMʿ ), the verb samiʿa/sumiʿa occurs 250 times in the Kitāb, whereas samāʿ occurs twice and samʿ (excluding the phonological sense of the term) occurs four times. 16

36

chapter two

transmitted data which Sībawayhi undertakes to report and analyze. This body is usually referred to as naql17 (lit. transmission) in contrast with material which some grammarians derive through qiyās (analogy) and is not supported by actual usage. Attested material in the Kitāb falls under four major categories: the Qurʾān, the prophetic traditions (ḥ adīt̠), the speech of the Bedouin (including proverbs and speech patterns or idiomatic expressions) and poetry. To be sure, each category poses to the author of the Kitāb a unique methodological problem. As far as ḥ adīt̠ is concerned, it has been already pointed out that Sībawayhi—like most other grammarians— quotes it sparingly, most probably because it was not always transmitted verbatim and thus its linguistic value, at least as far as construction is concerned, had to be questioned.18 Qurʾān, on the other hand, is problematic on two different counts. First, its text is recited through various readings or qirāʾāt, and although it is controversial whether Sībawayhi criticizes or rejects certain readings,19 he is undoubtedly cautious when it comes to the permissibility of some of them. His dilemma—at least in certain cases—is that he does not feel at liberty to be critical of a qirāʾa of which he is not convinced. Indeed, on one occasion he quotes the qirāʾa: wa-ammā T̠amūda fa-hadaynāhum (“As to T̠amūd, We gave them guidance”; Q 41:17) which may well resemble the frequent construction Zaydan ḍarabtuhu (“As to Zayd, I hit him”) but which has the accusative after ammā instead of the usual nominative, and notes that no objection can be raised to a qirāʾa because it represents a tradition (illā anna l-qirāʾa lā tuḫ ālaf li-anna l-qirāʾa sunna).20 The second problem is that the text of the Qurʾān is bound to raise theological issues which are beyond the scope of the Kitāb. Sībawayhi adopts here a simple solution, namely, to steer clear of involvement in the theological aspects of the holy text.21 His interest in the text is therefore purely linguistic, and in spite of the caution which he exercises in commenting on the qirāʾāt, he does not hesitate to indicate his preference to a dialect which

Ibn al-Anbārī (Lumaʿ 83–84) includes under naql the Qurʾān, the prophetic sunna, and the speech of the Arabs (i.e. both prose and poetry) in addition to miscellaneous material sporadically reported by trustworthy individuals. 18 See above, 8. 19 See chapter I, n. 25. 20 Kitāb I, 148. On another occasion (ibid., I, 331), he asserts that the Qur’ān addresses the Arabs in their own language and in accordance with the meanings which they intend. 21 Cf. Carter (2004: 45–46). 17

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

37

conflicts with Qurʾānic usage. A most telling example is that of mā which negates nominal sentences. The Ḥ iğāzīs use the accusative in its predicate (e.g. mā Zaydun munṭaliqan) whereas the Tamīmīs use the nominative (mā Zaydun munṭaliqun). Sībawayhi describes the Tamīmī usage as being the qiyās on the grounds that mā is not a verb and is thus not like laysa to which pronouns may be suffixed.22 He expresses his preference in spite of the fact that Qurʾānic usage is consistent with the Ḥ iğāzī dialect, as in mā hād̠ā bašaran (“No mortal is this”; Q 12:31). In this verse, the nominative is not an option since bašaran is written with a final alif which has to be acknowledged in reading. This is the reason why Sībawayhi says that Tamīmīs would read mā hād̠ā bašarun in the nominative, except for those of them who know how it appears in the Qurʾān (wa-banū Tamīm yarfaʿūnahā illā man darā kayfa hiya fī l-muṣḥ af ).23 Unlike the Qurʾān, the speech of the Arabs (which normally refers to prose) and poetry are void of religious ramifications, and Sībawayhi consequently must have been more at ease in his assessment of the material drawn from these two sources than with Qurʾānic data. However, contrary to ḥ adīt̠, which is only cited a few times,24 the Kitāb abounds with data derived from the Qurʾān in addition to poetry and prose. It is quite difficult to determine which of these three genres is foremost in Sībawayhi’s view as a source of data. A rough estimate on the basis of Hārūn’s indices of the Kitāb reveals that Sībawayhi’s šawāhid (pl. of šāhid; lit. evidence, proof) include about 1050 lines of poetry, 447 Qurʾānic verses, 350 speech patterns or idiomatic expressions and 41 proverbs. Judging by sheer numbers, it is obvious that poetic šawāhid are more numerous than the other two genres put together. But whereas the preponderance of poetry šawāhid over Qurʾānic ones is easily ascertainable, prose material is more difficult to quantify since in many cases the boundaries are blurred between the true šawāhid recorded directly from the Bedouin and what may be called amt̠ila (pl. of mit̠āl, example) of the type kasawtu Bišran al-t̠iyāba l-ğadīdata and nabbaʾtu Zaydan ʿAmran abā fulānin,25 which Sībawayhi makes up to exemplify certain syntactical relationships. In all cases, one should guard against numbers as the sole arbiter in determining the importance of the different genres 22 23 24 25

Kitāb I, 57. Ibid., I, 59. See above, 9. Kitāb I, 37, 41.

38

chapter two

which samāʿ embraces. It should also be noted that Sībawayhi at times begins his discussion by citing Qurʾānic verses before poetry and prose, or quotes more Qurʾānic verses than other types of šawāhid concerning a certain issue.26 On other occasions, the contrary is true and Qurʾān is quoted after poetry or prose, or to a far lesser extent than either. One can thus speak of topics in which Sībawayhi is more concerned with Qurʾānic šawāhid and of other topics which are more associated with poetry or prose material. In general, it seems that Sībawayhi is keen to include in most chapters a mixture of the three genres, and this may well be an attempt at demonstrating the universal applicability of the grammatical rules under discussion to the various genres of expression which he recognizes. The speech of the Arabs which is the source of Sībawayhi’s prose material presents two methodological problems, one of which is shared with poetry and will be discussed later. The other is related to the fact that the early grammarians and lexicographers who recorded Bedouin usage around Sībawayhi’s time cast their net wide in order to include in ʿArabiyya a variety of dialects in spite of the fact that these comprise a great deal of irreconcilable characteristics and idiosyncrasies. Most of the morphological forms and syntactical structures which Sībawayhi cites are not ascribed to specific dialects. Yet Sībawayhi does refer specifically to a dozen or so dialects, most notable among which are the Ḥ iğāzī and the Tamīmī ones, corresponding respectively to “western” and “eastern” dialects in contemporary studies. Other dialects which are only sporadically cited include those of Asad, Bakr b. Wāʾil, Fazāra, Ġaniyy, Ḫ at̠ʿam, Hud̠ayl, Kaʿb, Qays, Rabīʿa, Saʿd, Sulaym and Ṭayyiʾ, but it must be borne in mind that the geographical and tribal boundaries among the speakers of these dialects are quite blurred. Faced with such a large body of dialectical material, it is evident that Sībawayhi had to make a methodological decision as to how to deal with his data. It is safe to suppose that the data which he ascribes to the Arabs in general 27 are those which are most broadly used and do not exhibit dialectal variations. These, of course, constitute a large majority. Data ascribed to specific dialects, on the other hand, are those which exhibit features that are not shared by other dialects. Among these, Sībawayhi’s focus

26 The various patterns in which Sībawayhi arranges his šawāhid are discussed by Ḥ adītī̠ (1974: 32–42). 27 Hundreds of such cases are listed by Troupeau (1976: 246–248).

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

39

was mainly on the Ḥ iğāzī and Tamīmī dialects (cited 72 times and 67 times respectively), with no more than occasional reference to other dialects.28 Sībawayhi’s methodological decision to focus on Ḥ iğāzī and Tamīmī usage is based on his high esteem of these two dialects. That he highly esteems the Ḥ iğāzī dialect is clear in its description as the earliest and most ancient (wa-l-Ḥ iğāziyya hiya l-luġa l-ūlā wa-l-qudmā),29 and consequently the good Arabic (wa-hiya l-luġa l-ʿArabiyya l-qadīma l-ğayyida).30 This, however, does not deter him from describing certain Ḥ iğāzī usage—such as nabīʾ (prophet) and barīʾa (creation, mankind) in which the hamza is retained—as infrequent and bad (qalīl radīʾ).31 The dialect of Tamīm is often compared with that of Ḥ iğāz, and although Sībawayhi seems to favor the Ḥ iğāzī dialect in certain cases—as in the use of amsi (yesterday) with an invariable final -i, contrary to the Tamīmīs who use amsu in the nominative, as in d̠ahaba amsu and mud̠ amsu32—Tamīmī usage may be preferred in other cases, as we have seen with mā, or is described as aqyas al-wağhayni,33 that is more “normal” or more analogically acceptable. Thus, Sībawayhi does not seem to have a dialectal variety which he uniformly adopts or defends, and although his praise of the Ḥ iğāzī dialect, which is closely identified with Qurʾānic revelation, is undeniable, Carter is right in noting that “the Hijazi dialect was not the actual model for the practical form of the language which Sībawayhi sought to define” and that “there is something slightly patronizing in referring to Hijazi as ‘good old Arabic’”.34 After all, the Tamīmī variety was dominant in Sībawayhi’s region, and the Fuṣḥ ā or “purest” form of Arabic he aims to extract from the data, as Carter asserts, is based on

28 See Troupeau (ibid., 244–249) for a comprehensive list of dialects cited in the Kitāb. 29 Kitāb III, 278. 30 Ibid., IV, 473. Cf. also the expression ʿArabī ğayyid (IV, 482). The Ḥ iğāzī dialect is often depicted as conservative in contrast to the Tamīmī dialect which accepts change more readily; cf. the examples cited by al-Nassir (1993: 116). 31 Ibid., III, 555. 32 Ibid., III, 283. 33 The expression is used in relation with the Tamīmī construction mā anta bi-šayʾin illā šayʾun lā yuʿbaʾu bihi (ibid., II, 316), where the nominative in šayʾun matches the nominative in the Tamīmī use of mā anta šayʾun, whereas the Ḥ iğāzī usage in corresponding constructions lacks such matching. It is also used in relation with the nominative in the Tamīmī response to raʾaytu Zaydan and marartu bi-Zaydin by saying man Zaydun, in the nominative, contrary to the Ḥ iğāzīs who say man Zaydan and man Zaydin respectively (II, 413). 34 Carter (2004: 41).

40

chapter two

that variety. In any case, what is certain is that Sībawayhi’s corpus was largely affected by the results of the process of ğamʿ al-luġa discussed in the previous chapter.35 Just as the Arabic lexicon expanded considerably as a result of the inclusion of a host of dialects under the umbrella of the Fuṣḥ ā, the dialectal differences among the various tribes led to a similar expansion in the number of morphological forms and syntactical relationships, particularly at the level of case-endings or iʿrāb, which the grammarians had to deal with. Sībawayhi did not opt to adopt any particular variety to the exclusion of others, but he certainly narrowed down his focus to the two major “western” and “eastern” varieties. In addition to this, and perhaps more importantly, he resorted to other methods which would ensure that aberrant material be kept in check. This often meant, as we shall see later,36 that he had to disregard certain dialectal variants or, alternatively, interpret his material in a manner that would protect the general rules from being eroded due to the presence of too many admissible exceptions. The other methodological problem which prose poses is applicable to poetry as well and concerns the time limitations to which the data are subject. For Sībawayhi, the problem is more related to poetry than prose. However, the question of ʿuṣūr al-iḥtiğāğ (i.e. the epochs during which usage may be used as linguistic evidence) which was frequently raised by later grammarians pertains to both prose and poetry,37 obviously to the exclusion of Qurʾān and prophetic ḥ adīt̠ since the historical period to which these two sources belong is more or less well-defined. The linguistic material which was collected in or before Sībawayhi’s time and which included both prose and poetry was largely deemed by the scholars of the period to be admissible to the corpus. It was only at a later stage that time limitations became serious enough to warrant discussion in order to decide when the corpus should be closed. For prose, the corpus was open roughly up to the end of the second/eighth century in the case of the urban areas (amṣār) and up to the end of the fourth/tenth century in the case of the Bedouin. It is clear that by the time of Ibn Ğinnī (d. 392/1002), who himself frequently consulted

35

See above, 24–26. See chapter III, section 3. 37 For a detailed discussion of the issues related to the time framework set by the grammarians for data admissible to the corpus, see ʿĪd (1972: 148–174) and Ğabal (1986: 73–110). 36

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

41

Bedouin informants,38 it was rare to encounter an eloquent ( faṣīḥ ) Bedouin the purity of whose dialect is totally untarnished.39 The linguistic content of poetry, on the other hand, was subject to more severe criteria which were closely linked to those set by literary critics. For his part, Sībawayhi was surely aware of the methodological problems associated with the admissibility of poetry šawāhid without any consideration for a time framework, particularly since the sources cite the opposition of several contemporaries of his to the inclusion of muwallad poetry in the body of šawāhid. The category of muwallad is not clearly defined but is part of the temporal classification—by poetry critics and philologists alike40—of poets into four categories, namely, the ğāhiliyyūn, the muḫaḍramūn who straddle both ğāhiliyya and Islam, the islāmiyyūn, and the muwalladūn who loosely include those who are not of “pure” Arab origin or who roughly belong to the “post-classical” era and are thus also referred to as the muḥ dat̠ūn, probably as of the second half of the second/eighth century. Some of Sībawayhi’s contemporaries who were adamantly opposed to citing the poetry of the muwalladūn even gave precedence to pre-Islamic poetry over early Islamic poetry. Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ41 (d. 154/770), for example, is reported to have said that had al-Aḫtạ l (d. 90/708) lived even for one day in ğāhiliyya, he would not have given precedence to any other poet over him.42 Given his predominantly philological interest, Abū ʿAmr’s comment most

See, for example, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 76, 78, 240–242, 250. Ibid., II, 5–7. 40 The temporal classification of poetry is very common in works on pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry. Ibn Sallām (d. 232/846) broadly classifies poets according to whether they belong to ğāhiliyya or Islam or straddle both (Ṭabaqāt I, 23–24). Similarly, Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889), and in spite of his assertion that precedence in time should not be a factor in the ranking of poets (Šiʿr 10–11), does not diverge from the traditional temporal classification. Further confirmation of this classification is found in later works such as Marzubānī’s (d. 384/994) Muwaššaḥ which is arranged temporally and al-Šarīf al-Ğurğānī’s (d. 816/1413) commentary on Zamaḫšarī’s (d. 538/1144) Kaššāf (Ğurğānī, Ḥ āšiya I, 220–221). Also noteworthy is the congruence between the classification of Ibn Rašīq (d. 463/1071) which is based on literary considerations (cf. the expressions aġmaḍ maslakan, araqq ḥ āšiyatan, ḥ alāwat lafẓihi, rašāqat maʿnāhu, ṭilāwa, labāqa; ʿUmda, I, 113) and that of Baġdādī’s (d. 1093/1682) which sums up the traditional stance of the philologists and grammarians, and which is concerned solely with the permissibility or otherwise of citing poetry as testimony to acceptable usage (Ḫ izāna I, 5–6). 41 Although Abū ʿAmr is prior to the poets who are generally considered as muwalladūn in the second half of the second century, he considers as muwallad the two famous Umayyad poets, Ğarīr (d. 110/728) and Farazdaq (d. 110/728 also); see Ibn Rašīq, ʿUmda I, 90. 42 Iṣfahānī, Aġānī VIII, 284. 38 39

42

chapter two

probably refers to the linguistic, rather than artistic, value of Aḫtạ l’s poetry. This may be corroborated by Aṣmaʿī’s (d. 213/813) saying that he accompanied Abū ʿAmr for eight years but never heard him adduce as testimony (yaḥtağğ) even one line of poetry from the Islamic period.43 Similar to Abū ʿAmr’s position, Aṣmaʿī is reported to have claimed that had Baššār b. Burd (d. 167/784) lived earlier, he would have preferred him to many a poet.44 Having himself noted the adverse effect on his poetry of the scholar’s preference of ğāhilī poetry to Islamic poetry, Baššār is said to have blamed ad̠ān (i.e. call to prayer, hence the Islamic period) for the disparagement of his poetry (azrā bi-šiʿrī l-ad̠ān).45 Sībawayhi’s šawāhid largely exclude muwallad poetry and hence point in the same direction as the above-mentioned views. Exceptionally, Sībawayhi indicates that a šāhid is attributed to a muwallad poet, as in the case of an anonymous Salūlī poet whom he peculiarly describes as muwallad.46 But being an isolated example, no conclusions can be drawn from it as to whether the use of the term muwallad diminishes the value which Sībawayhi attaches to the šāhid relative to other šawāhid. In fact, it is even doubtful whether the term muwallad is Sībawayhi’s since it may well be part of a later addition to the text, particularly because the expression li-rağul min banī Salūl muwallad seems to have been inserted after the word qawluhu which would have perfectly concluded the author’s sentence. This šāhid aside, it may be argued that even if one were to believe the allegations made by some later authors that Sībawayhi’s famous fifty unattributed šawāhid known in the sources as the ḫ amsūn were forged by the muwalladūn,47 that would leave about a thousand šāhid which are spared this alleged forgery. In the wider context of Arabic grammatical tradition, and given Sībawayhi’s influential position, the fact that his šawāhid largely exclude muwallad poetry must have strongly contributed to the grammarians’ conviction that this poetry should be kept outside the sphere of acceptable linguistic testimony. It is not a coincidence that all the poets considered in the tradition to be the last ones who belong to ʿuṣūr al-iḥtiğāğ were

Ibn Rašīq, ʿUmda I, 90. Iṣfahānī, Aġānī II, 137. 45 Ibid., III, 136. 46 Kitāb III, 24. Cf. Ğumʿa (1989: 296) for the absence of muwallad poetry from the Kitāb. 47 Suyūtị̄ , Iqtirāḥ 60. For the lack of credibility of such allegations, see Ḥ adīt̠ī (1974: 110 ff.). 43 44

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

43

Sībawayhi’s contemporaries. These include Ruʾba (d. 145/762), Ibn Mayyāda (d. 149/766), al-Ḥ akam al-Ḫ uḍrī (d. 150/767), Makīn al-ʿUd̠rī (d. circa 160/777), and Ibn Harma (d. 176/792), who are described by Aṣmaʿī as sāqat al-šuʿarāʾ48 (lit. the poets of the rear), that is, the last individuals whose poetry may be used as testimony to correct usage. It is interesting to note that the last of these poets, Ibn Harma, 49 died in 176 A.H., only four years before Sībawayhi, or perhaps only one year before him if we were to believe the rīwāya which assigns 177 A.H. as the year of Sībawayhi’s death!50 Another methodological problem related to poetry had to be addressed by Sībawayhi. Unlike other genres, poetic usage is often described in the Kītab as either inadmissible (lā yağūz) or weak (ḍaʿīf ) in actual speech (kalām).51 In the very early parts of the Kitāb, Sībawayhi devotes to poetic license a chapter entitled mā yaḥ tamil al-šiʿr.52 He obviously wanted to highlight very early in his book the inherent differences between šiʿr and kalām as a necessary step in dealing with those forms and constructions with which poetry is replete and which do not conform to the norms of kalām. Other than this introductory chapter, Sībawayhi makes repeated reference throughout the Kitāb to the difference between the two genres and even devotes whole chapters to certain phenomena which are unique to poetic usage, such as the use of euphonic elision (tarḫīm) in non-vocative contexts, the use of the independent accusative pronoun iyyā, and the various changes to which words are subject as a result of rhyme (qāfiya).53 But if poetry diverges so much from spoken language, why did Sībawayhi include it in the first place among the sources from which he derived his data? Obviously, the omission of poetry as a source of data was not an option for Sībawayhi. Poetry was largely regarded—not only in the field of philology but also in various other areas, such as genealogies, geographical works, biographical sources, Wars of the Arabs (ayyām al-ʿArab)—as the medium through which tradition was preserved and transmitted. It would have been inconceivable for Sībawayhi not to draw on this vast

Ibn Qutayba, Šiʿr 639; cf. Iṣfahānī, Aġānī IV, 375; V, 238. Cf. Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna I, 425: wa-Ibn Harma āḫ ir al-šuʿarāʾ allad̠īna yuḥ tağğ bi-šiʿrihim. 50 Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist 57, n. 5; Ibn Ḫ illikān, Wafayāt III, 464. 51 E.g. Kitāb I, 26, 48, 72, 101, 209, 361. 52 Ibid., I, 26–32. 53 Ibid., I, 269–274, 362; IV, 204–216. 48

49

44

chapter two

wealth which poetry contains. After all, poetry was generally considered to be the register (dīwān) of the Arabs,54 and as a later author, Marzūqī (d. 421/1030) puts it, a “depository” (mustawdaʿ ) of knowledge and the equivalent of books to other nations.55 No wonder then that the number of poetry šawāhid in the Kitāb exceeds the number of šawāhid drawn from other genres put together. Even the term šawāhid is used by some later grammarians to refer to poetic šawāhid exclusively, as witnessed by numerous works which are devoted solely to poetic šawāhid yet whose titles simply mention šawāhid without any further specification. Examples include Ibn Hišām’s (d. 761/1360) Taḫlīṣ al-šawāhid wa-talḫīṣ al-fawāʾid and Suyūṭī’s (d. 911/1505) Šarḥ šawāhid al-Muġnī. Another reason for the importance of poetic šawāhid in the Kitāb has to do with the notions of ġarīb (strange or unfamiliar usage) and nādir (rare usage). The early lexicographers, beginning with those who are credited with collecting the data which form the corpus of Arabic, were greatly fond of unfamiliar or rare forms and constructions. Early lexicographical works of the second/eighth and third/ninth centuries on topics related to plants, animals, human body organs, natural phenomena, tools etc. contain a large body of ġarīb and nādir material, and some works were even devoted to these two categories, such as Anṣārī’s (d. 215/830) Nawādir, Abū ʿUbayd’s (d. 224/838) al-Ġarīb al-muṣannaf, and Abū Misḥal’s (d. 231/845) Nawādir. In grammar, the two terms ġarīb and nādir occur only sporadically, but their sense is expressed by terms such as šād̠d̠, qalīl, ġayr muṭtạ rid, ġayr maqīs, etc. which can refer to usage that may not readily be comprehensible by native speakers and often by philologists as well. In fact, many of Sībawayhi’s poetry šawāhid contain morphological forms and syntactical constructions which are suggestive of ġarīb or nādir material, including dialectal variations. The preoccupation of Sībawayhi and other grammarians by the aberrant šawāhid is seen by Ğāḥiẓ (d. 255/869) as so flagrant that he accuses them of being interested only in poetry from the perspective of iʿrāb and accuses poetry narrators—who include those scholars to whom we generally refer as lexicographers—of being interested only in strange usage and difficult meanings (wa-lam ara ġāyat al-naḥwiyyīna illā kull šiʿr fīhi iʿrāb wa-lam ara ġāyat ruwāt al-šiʿr illā kull šiʿr fīhi ġarīb aw

54 Ibn Sallām, Ṭabaqāt I, 25; Ibn Fāris, Ṣāḥibī 275. The expression al-šiʿr dīwān al-ʿArab also appears in the opening verse of a poem in Abū Firās al-Ḥ amdānī’s Dīwān 22. 55 Marzūqī, Šarḥ I, 3.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

45

maʿnā ṣaʿb).56 Ğāḥiẓ’s criticism may be somewhat exaggerated, but it serves as a reminder that much of the aberrant grammatical material originates from poetry. Being so familiar with the ġarīb or nādir material contained in poetry which he heard from his teachers or directly from his informants, Sībawayhi could hardly have ignored this vast body of data in his linguistic analysis. On the contrary, he faced the challenge posed by data which contradict the norm in order to prove the validity of his grammatical theory which is able to incorporate and interpret irregular or deviant usage. The peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of poetry hence did not deter Sībawayhi from heavily relying on its morphological and syntactical content in his analysis. But although he was keen on including in his data the aberrant material which poetry embraces, he was equally keen on preserving the norms which are generally derived from kalām and minimizing deviation from them. For this purpose, he often resorted to the concept of iḍtị rār (more frequently called ḍarūra in later sources) which is also indicated by expressions like yaḥ tamil al-šiʿr, yağūz fī l-šiʿr.57 In the Kitāb and in the tradition as a whole, iḍtị rār (or ḍarūra) is a phenomenon of poetry par excellence.58 To Sībawayhi’s teacher, Ḫ alīl (d. 175/791), is attributed the view that poets are the masters of speech (umarāʾ al-kalām) who can handle it as they please ( yuṣarrifūnahu annā šāʾū) and who are accorded the right to diverge from the norm in certain cases.59 It should be emphasized, however, that although at face value iḍtị rār indicates that violation of the norm is necessitated by constraints of meter and rhyme, the use of the term in the Kitāb

56 Ğāḥiẓ, Bayān IV, 24. The term iʿrāb here is obviously a reference to those uncommon phenomena related to iʿrāb of which the grammarians were so fond. This is corroborated by a statement by al-Rāġib al-Iṣfahānī (d. 502/1108) in which the adjective mustaġrab, a synonym of ġarīb, describes the type of iʿrāb in which the grammarians were particularly interested (wa-kat̠īr min al-naḥwiyyīna la yamīlūna min al-šiʿr [illā] ilā mā fīhi iʿrāb mustaġrab wa maʿnā mustaṣʿab; Rāġib, Muḥ āḍarāt I, 94). Note also that even poets complained at times of the philologists’ bias towards what is uncommon and pompous. Abū Nuwās (d. 198/814), for example, is quoted as saying that had all of his poetry been grandiloquent, no other poet would have been preferred to him (law kāna šiʿrī kulluhu yamlaʾ al-fam mā taqaddamanī aḥ ad; cf. Marzubānī, Muwaššaḥ 409). 57 Kitāb I, 26, 32, 407; II, 125 respectively. 58 Authors of works on ḍarūra mention some examples in which it is said to occur in rhymed prose, proverbs, prophetic tradition, and even Qurʾānic verses (cf. Sīrāfī, Ḍ arāʾir 13–14; Ālūsī, Ḍ arāʾir 29–34). Such cases, however, are extremely rare and are usually interpreted as being “appended” (ulḥ iqa) or likened (šubbiha) to poetry. 59 Ḥ āzim, Minhāğ 143–144.

46

chapter two

does not suggest that the necessity in question is inescapable.60 Rather, it demonstrates the uniqueness of poetry as a medium of expression which has to be accounted for, but whose characteristics may not be analogically extended to ordinary speech which does not necessarily tolerate (cf. yaḥ tamil) poetry’s morphological or syntactical features. Sībawayhi’s awareness of the two different levels of usage which šiʿr and kalām represent proves that he was interested in describing and analyzing data derived from more than a single source. Although the model which he seeks to define is basically present in the speech of the Arabs (i.e. in prose rather than poetry), the vast amount of poetry material which violates the norms of speech was incorporated into his data, yet always within a general framework which recognizes that the idiosyncrasies of poetic usage should not be reproduced in kalām. This, however, in no way means, as Levin claims, that “the Kitāb text shows that the status of the early poetical language, as a source of Sībawayhi’s linguistic description, is inferior to that of the spoken language of the ʿArab”.61 Within Sībawayhi’s overall system of grammatical analysis, the relationship between the two genres, as we have seen above, is one of close interrelatedness and complementarity. It is true that, as Levin notes, “Sībawayhi does not consider the poetical language of the ʿArab as a model to be imitated by anyone wishing to speak good Arabic”,62 but both šiʿr and kalām are equally indispensable for Sībawayhi’s theory which tries to interpret all available types of usage, irrespective of whether the linguistic characteristics of a certain type are applicable to another. That šiʿr and kalām enjoy a similar status in the Kitāb can be supported from another perspective, namely, the fact that data from spoken language do contain dialectal differences which, like poetry, do not agree with the norm. But just as Sībawayhi’s theory is able to deal with these differences without undermining the dominant or most commonly attested usage, it allows for aberrancy in poetry to be recognized

60 It is widely held in the tradition that ḍarūra may be either avoidable or unavoidable, but its distinctive feature is that it occurs in poetry and not in other genres. In a minority camp stands Ibn Mālik (d. 672/1274) who seems to have favored the literal meaning of ḍarūra by asserting that it occurs when a poet unavoidably has to use a certain form or construction. See a refutation of this view in Suyūṭī, Ašbāh I, 224–225 and Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna I, 33–34; cf. also Ḥ adīt̠ī (1980: 71–154) and Ibrāhīm (1983: 31–54). 61 Levin (2000: 255). Note, however, that Levin (1994: 217) had earlier correctly concluded that “the status of the speech of the ʿarab as a source for Sībawayhi’s linguistic description is the same as that of the Qurʾān and ancient poetry”. 62 Levin (2000: 255).

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

47

and subjected to the same tools of analysis used for spoken language, also without undermining the norms which are predominantly determined by usage outside the sphere of poetry. 3. Qiyās (Analogy) Qiyās is one of the most fundamental concepts in the Kitāb, not only because it reveals Sībawayhi’s interest in the analytical competence of native speakers, but also because it is central to his overall grammatical theory which tries to explain forms, patterns, constructions, etc. and to reveal the supposedly inherent logic which underlies linguistic phenomena.63 Based upon that, we shall try in this section to establish a link between the various senses in which Sībawayhi uses the term qiyās and demonstrate how he utilizes this essential concept in analyzing and justifying attested material. The process of “analogical extension” which qiyās—as a term most likely borrowed from ethical terminology64—implies in most of its occurrences is essentially the result of the speaker’s awareness of the similarity between two elements or among the various elements which constitute a certain phenomenon. According to Sībawayhi, it is enough that the speaker recognizes the existence of a certain similarity between two otherwise different items in order for him to extend analogically to one of them a feature which the other possesses (wa-qad yušabbihūna l-šayʾ wa-laysa mit̠lahu fī ğamīʿ aḥwālihi; yušabbahu l-šayʾ bi-l-šayʾ fī mawḍiʿ wāḥ id wa-in lam yuwāfiqhu fī ğamīʿ al-mawāḍiʿ ).65 For example, the Ḥ iğāzīs are said to use the accusative in the predicate of mā, as in mā Zaydun munṭaliqan, because they perceive a similarity in meaning between mā and laysa, both of which indicate negation. The result of this perception is their extension to the predicate of mā the same treatment of the predicate of laysa, hence the accusative, in spite of the fact that laysa, according to Sībawayhi, is a verb and that pronouns may be suffixed to it (e.g. lastu, lastumā, etc.), whereas mā is neither a verb nor can pronouns be suffixed to it.66 The Tamīmīs, on the other hand, use the 63 For the importance of qiyās in the Arabic grammatical tradition, and particularly from the perspective of taʿlīl (causation), see Suleiman (1999: 25 ff.). 64 Cf. Carter (1972a: 84; 1973a: 147 ff.). 65 Kitāb I, 182 and IV, 195; see other similar statements in I, 123, 397; II, 148; III, 278, 302, 374, 413. 66 Ibid., I, 57.

48

chapter two

nominative in the predicate of mā, as in mā Zaydun munṭaliqun, that is, they do not introduce a change to the predicate of the supposedly original sentence Zaydun munṭaliqun. Sībawayhi also attributes this to qiyās, based on the perceived similarity in the minds of the Tamīmīs between mā and particles like ammā and hal, leading to analogical extension ( fa-yuğrūnahā muğrā ammā wa-hal ay lā yuʿmilūnahā fī šayʾ wa-huwa l-qiyās). Although both dialects, the Tamīmī and the Ḥ iğāzī, are justified by Sībawayhi, he obviously prefers the Tamīmī dialect which he describes as being the qiyās. It is thus clear that the term qiyās (or in the case of mā, terms which imply it such as yuğrūna and yušabbihūna) is applicable to two different levels, that of the speaker’s perception of resemblance between two different items and that of the grammarian’s analysis of this process. Hence, both the Ḥ iğāzīs and the Tamīmīs apply qiyās to determine the case-endings appropriate for the predicate of mā, but, according to Sībawayhi, the Tamīmī usage is the one which deserves to be recognized as the qiyās (in another instance, aqyas 67 or “more regular”) since it is in line with his own criteria of the resemblance between mā and other particles. The speaker’s competence in finding resemblance between two apparently unrelated items prompts Sībawayhi to speak of another type of qiyās which the speaker resorts to on a more general level. In this respect, the term qiyās acquires the sense of a “rule” that governs the various elements which together constitute a certain phenomenon. It is in connection with this sense that qiyās, as used by the speaker, and qiyās, which the grammarian needs to resort to in his explanation of linguistic phenomena, are most closely connected. A telling example is that in which Sībawayhi justifies ġadāwiyy and ridāwiyy as the nisba form of ġadāʾ and ridāʾ respectively. He cites the difference between wāw and yāʾ in words which end with either hamza or alif, particularly in connection with the perceived heaviness (t̠iqal) in their nisba forms, and concludes that the shift from hamza to wāw in ġadāwiyy and ridāwiyy is a qiyās mustamirr (uniform qiyās) in this pattern and that this has to be seen in the more general context of the rules which govern the mutation patterns of hamza, alif, wāw and yāʾ.68 Qiyās in this context has two interrelated senses: it is a process dependent on the competence of native speakers in discovering relationships among the members of

67 68

Ibid., II, 316. Ibid., III, 349.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

49

a complex set of linguistic elements, and at the same time it is the very rule which they assign for each group of similar words. It is implicit in the Kitāb that the grammarian is thus justified in identifying the rule (here also qiyās) which would explain the phenomena of resemblance and analogical extension, the logic being that qiyās is primarily the function of the speaker and that the grammarian should be able to unveil the factors behind the speaker’s choice of a certain case-ending, form, construction, etc. What gives credence to this interpretation is the use of the term qiyās in contexts such as wa-qad yanbaġī fī qiyās man qāla l-ḍāribu l-rağuli an yaqūl al-ḍāribu aḫī l-rağuli 69 or wa-qiyās man ḫ affafa l-ūlā an yaqūl.70 In both examples, the term refers to the norms or rules which the speaker has to take into consideration in deciding correct usage and which the grammarian needs to analyze and express in grammatical terms. The transition of qiyās from the domain of the speaker to the domain of the grammarian is reflected in the abstraction which the term itself seems to have undergone. Whether this abstraction is peculiar to Sībawayhi or was developed by his contemporaries or predecessors is hard to tell, but since we have no earlier work with which to compare, we will assume that the development of the term as traced in the Kitāb is part of the contribution of Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi to the grammatical tradition. One type of abstraction is the use of the term to express merely the similarity between two items without the analogical extension which this similarity usually entails. In commenting on constructions like qataltuhu ṣabran, laqītuhu fuğāʾatan and kallamtuhu mušāfahatan, Sībawayhi notes that not all verbal nouns are used with this type of accusative although in qiyās they are similar to those verbal nouns that do appear in such constructions (wa-laysa kull maṣdar wa-in kāna fī l-qiyās mit̠l mā maḍā min hād̠ā l-bāb yūḍaʿ hād̠ā l-mawḍiʿ ).71 Another type of abstraction is that qiyās acquires, specifically in morphology, the meaning of “pattern”. Thus, Sībawayhi speaks of qiyās taṣġīr af ʿal, qiyās ġazwa, qiyās ğudur 72 and notes that fuʿūl and fuʿalāʾ are not qiyās mutamakkin, that is, they are not frequent patterns in the formation of broken plurals of adjectives.73 Both types of abstraction contribute to

69 70 71 72 73

Ibid., I, 193. Ibid., III, 549. Ibid., I, 370. Ibid., III, 430, 431, 607 respectively. Ibid., III, 632.

50

chapter two

the transformation of qiyās from a process in the mind of the speaker into an undisputed linguistic reality such as the resemblance which the grammarian (rather than the speaker) observes among various types of verbal nouns in the first example, and the pattern which he abstracts from several words in the second. It is obvious that inductive qiyās upon which the whole grammatical tradition heavily relies could not have developed were it not for the abstraction which the concept underwent, as part of its transformation, from the sense of “analogical extension” based on resemblance which the speaker notes to other senses such as “rule”, “similarity” and “pattern”, all of which are basic components of the analytical apparatus utilized by the grammarians in explaining and justifying usage. Sībawayhi’s use of qiyās reveals yet another dimension of this versatile concept. This is its employment to refer to a purely theoretical activity which the grammarian performs without direct recourse to attested material. With this sense, the transition from the speaker to the grammarian in the application of qiyās is fully achieved. One example is the lengthy chapter in which Sībawayhi proposes forms of words which he derives from finally weak verbs on the analogy of their counterparts derived from sound verbs.74 Thus, on the analogy of ḥ amaṣīṣa, one would say *ramawiyya from the root rmy, and on the analogy of uf ʿūla, one would say *uġzuwwa from the root ġzw and so on. As the title of the chapter indicates, such forms are not actually attested, but may be formed on the analogy (cf. qīsa) of other words by introducing the necessary changes which weak letters would require. Similarly, words may be theoretically derived from geminate roots to emulate attested words whose roots are sound. For example, on the analogy (cf. qīsa) of the patterns fuʿal, faʿalūl and if ʿalaltu, Sībawayhi proposes *rudad, radadūd and irdadadtu.75 The purpose of the deduction involved in this qiyās is to test the validity of the analysis of attested usage by demonstrating the ability of the hypothesis to generate forms which may well have been used were it not for certain peculiarities of their roots. It is essential, however, to note that, contrary to the naḥwiyyūn whom Sībawayhi criticizes for drawing grammatical conclusions that are based on their own criteria of utterances, and contrary to the naḥ ārīr whom

74 75

Ibid., IV, 406–415. Ibid., IV, 427.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

51

Ḫ alīl ridicules for their impermissible neologisms,76 Sībawayhi experiments with forms and patterns not with the intention of forming new admissible material but for checking the soundness of the analysis which is applied to attested usage. His proposed words are mere illustrative examples, and he continuously alerts his reader to the fact that they are nowhere to be found in actual usage. Once qiyās is firmly established as a grammatical tool that is largely independent of the sense which the term has in connection with the speaker, it appears in contexts where Sībawayhi explicitly prefers a certain usage to another. This prescriptive approach is expressed mainly by the term aqyas which is used sixteen times in the Kitāb77 and straddles both syntax and morphology. The term applies to what Sībawayhi judges to be a “more regular” usage, that is, usage which is more in line with what the application of grammatical rules is expected to yield. For example, the Tamīmī usage of mā, as we have seen above, is described as aqyas al-wağhayni compared with the Ḥ iğāzī usage.78 Similarly, the Tamīmī dialect in which man Zaydun, in the nominative, is uniformly used in response to the statements hād̠ā Zaydun, raʾaytu Zaydan and marartu bi-Zaydin, rather than man Zaydun, man Zaydan and man Zaydin respectively, is described as aqyas al-qawlayni.79 In the realm of morphology, aḫ sạ f (having two colors) is judged to be aqyas than ḫ aṣīf,80 obviously because the pattern af ʿal is more closely associated with color than the pattern faʿ īl. In verbal patterns, the use of fatḥ a in the imperfect of verbs of the type faʿila, as in yaʾisa/yayʾasu and naʿima/ yanʿamu, is said to be aqyas than the use of kasra,81 for although the likes of yaʾisa/yayʾisu and naʿima/yanʿimu are attested and can be justified on the basis of analogy to faʿula/yaf ʿulu in which the same vowel appears both in the perfect and imperfect, they are anomalous when compared with the large majority of verbs of the pattern faʿila/yaf ʿalu. The above discussion of Sībawayhi’s use of the concept of aqyas is part of a larger methodological problem in the Kitāb, namely, the relationship between qiyās and samāʿ within the general system of grammatical analysis, and, consequently, the extent to which anomalous material can

76 77 78 79 80 81

See above, 20. Troupeau (1976: QYS). Kitāb II, 316. Ibid., II, 413. Ibid., IV, 26. Ibid., IV, 38–39.

52

chapter two

be interpreted in order to limit deviation from the norm and preserve the general applicability of grammatical rules. The root of this problem lies in the sheer size of the corpus which Sībawayhi had to deal with in his study of the speech of the Arabs. The collection of linguistic data or ğamʿ al-luġa discussed above82 had yielded by Sībawayhi’s time—and particularly due to the efforts of some of his own teachers like Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, Yūnus b. Ḥ abīb and Ḫ alīl b. Aḥmad—a huge body of material which obviously does not represent any particular dialect or geographical region to the exclusion of other dialects or regions. It thus became the norm rather than the exception for grammatical rules to be undermined by anomalous or divergent, yet reliably recorded usage. It is clear in the Kitāb that Sībawayhi is acutely aware of the methodological problem caused by the considerable amount of exceptions to acknowledged rules. To encounter this, he seems to have established a delicate balance between samāʿ and qiyās. One, however, should caution against considering these two concepts as contradictory. Rather, they are complementary within the wider system of analyzing usage. After all, as was pointed out earlier, qiyās according to Sībawayhi is primarily a process achieved by the speaker, and the grammarian should emulate that process in trying to discover the reasons behind certain linguistic phenomena. Accordingly, Sībawayhi views qiyās as an essential tool for analyzing the speech of the Arabs and for organizing attested material by keeping exceptions to a minimum. In this respect, he differs from the naḥwiyyūn and the more prescriptive among later grammarians who use qiyās in a purely theoretical manner for the purpose of making up complex utterances of which native speakers would not approve, or as an instrument for judging the acceptability of attested usage, often for dismissing it. Sībawayhi states in absolutely clear terms that the admissibility of any form or construction is first and foremost a function of its use by the Arabs in actual speech. It goes without saying that qiyās, in the sense of emulating the speech of the Arabs, is a legitimate and indispensable tool for any speaker. On many occasions, Sībawayhi asserts this dimension of qiyās by addressing his reader with expressions like fa-kad̠ālika fa-qis hād̠ihi l-ašyāʾ, or fa-ʿalā hād̠ā fa-qis hād̠ā l-naḥw, or fa-ʿalā hād̠ā fa-ağri d̠ā l-bāb, etc.83 It is significant that Māzinī (d. 249/863) ascribes

82 83

See above, 24 ff. Kitāb III, 400, 540 (cf. 426), 71 respectively.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

53

the principle of analogical extension based on attested usage to Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi and thus disagrees with Abū l-Ḥ asan al-Aḫfaš (d. 215/ 830), who allows theoretical morphological forms which do not follow any Arabic pattern. Māzinī and his commentator, Ibn Ğinnī (d. 392/1002),84 explain the principle of analogical extension upheld by Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi in a steadfast rule: what is formed on the analogy of Arab usage must be Arabic (mā qīsa ʿalā kalām al-ʿArab fa-huwa min kalāmihim). What is meant by this type of qiyās is the competence of the speaker in emulating the speech of the Arabs and uttering forms or constructions which he never heard before (e.g. ẓarufa Ḫ ālidun and ḥ amuqa Bišrun on the analogy of qāma Zaydun). It is thus clear that Sībawayhi was fully aware of the generative potential which is characteristic of speech since a finite number of linguistic elements are sufficient to produce an infinite number of utterances. Having established the supremacy of samāʿ as the basis of the process of analogical extension in actual speech, Sībawayhi extends this supremacy from the domain of the speaker to that of the grammarian, in line with his conviction that the discipline of grammar should try to match or replicate the mental processes which underlie speech. Thus, since speakers do not resort to qiyās in the absence of samaʿ, it naturally follows, according to Sībawayhi, that the grammarians should also refrain from qiyās under such circumstances (cf. his criticism of the naḥwiyyūn for having proposed aʿṭāhūka and aʿṭāhūnī without any supporting evidence from samāʿ ).85 Furthermore, since no one has ever heard all possible forms and constructions and since speakers naturally have to resort to analogical extension, it also should be permissible for the grammarians to follow suit and propose, within well-defined limits, those forms and constructions which their own qiyās based on attested material allows. Among the most telling examples concerning the relationship between qiyās and samāʿ is that in which Sībawayhi discusses the anomalous verbal noun riḍā which, unlike other verbal nouns of the pattern faʿila/ yaf ʿalu has a kasra after its first radical, just like šibaʿ which also has such a kasra contrary to other words of its class. Sībawayhi comments on such forms by saying that one should not dare use them without the evidence of samāʿ (wa-d̠ā lā yuğsar ʿalayhi illā bi-samāʿ . . . wa-hād̠ā

84 85

Ibn Ğinnī, Munṣif I, 180–183. Kitāb II, 364.

54

chapter two

yusmaʿ wa-lā yuğsar ʿalayhi wa-lākin yuğāʾ bi-naẓāʾirihi baʿd al-samʿ ).86 Such a bold statement clearly reveals his belief that speakers and grammarians alike are bound by actual usage and, in its absence, should not dare (cf. lā yuğsar ʿalayhi) generalize anomalies. On another occasion, he asserts that there is no escape (lā budd) from emulating what the Arabs use in their speech. Had they, for example, used the construction *iḍrib ayyun afḍalu (“Hit whomsoever is best”!) instead of ayyan afḍalu or ayyuhum afḍalu, one would have to comply with their usage, but should always avoid the analogical extension of what is šād̠d̠ (anomalous) and munkar (abominable).87 As for infrequent phenomena which are not necessarily munkar according to Sībawayhi, they are to be committed to memory but not to be generalized through analogical extension. Expressions which embody this principle are of the following types: wa-innamā yuḥ faẓ hād̠ā ḥ ifẓan wa-lā yuqās ʿalayhi; fa-innamā hād̠ā l-aqall nawādir tuḥ faẓ ʿan al-ʿArab wa-lā yuqās ʿalayhā; wa-hād̠ā qalīl yuḥ faẓ, etc.88 In contrast, he unhesitatingly allows the application of qiyās to linguistic data which he describes as kat̠īr (frequent), akt̠ar (more frequent), muṭtạ rid (invariable), mutlaʾibb (constant), etc.89 Sībawayhi exploits the strong bond which naturally exists in speech between qiyās and frequent usage by generalizing its application to intricate questions which speakers and grammarians alike inevitably face. On several occasions where analogical extension can be made on the basis of more then one choice, the one which is of most frequent occurrence is chosen. Following are three examples: 1. If one does not know whether nouns of the pattern faʿāli, such as Ḥ ad̠āmi and Raqāši (both proper nouns), are derived (here maʿdūl, deviated) from another pattern, or whether they are feminine or masculine, then the correct qiyās is to treat them as triptotes because most nouns of the pattern faʿāl (without a final kasra) are triptotes which are not derived from other patterns, as is the case with d̠ahāb, ṣalāḥ , fasād and rabāb.90 2. The diminutive of conditional in, in which is followed by the subjunctive, and otiose (or redundant) in should be unayy. The reason is that

86 87 88 89 90

Ibid., III, 538–539. Ibid., II, 402. Ibid., IV, 100, 8, 119 respectively; cf. III, 554, 615. See, for example, Kitāb I, 147, 436; II, 82; III, 267–268, 280, 554; IV, 8, 154, 423. Ibid., III, 280.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

55

these particles lack one radical (i.e. compared with triliterals) and there is no indication as to whether that radical is yāʾ or wāw. Accordingly, one should apply analogical extension on the basis of what is more frequent ( fa-taḥ miluhu ʿalā l-akt̠ar), in this case, yāʾ, because words like ibn, ism, and yad usually lack yāʾ and not wāw.91 3. If a noun which has the same pattern as nāb occurs and one does not know whether its middle radical is yāʾ or wāw, one should apply analogical extension on the basis of wāw because it is more frequent ( fa-ḥmilhu ʿalā l-akt̠ar), until one is able to say with certainty whether the radical is yāʾ or wāw.92 Although the above quotations are addressed to the reader, it is obvious that the issues which they raise hardly concern any speaker of Arabic. It is difficult to imagine that the speaker would invoke a purely theoretical principle such as ʿadl (deviation), according to which Ḥ ad̠āmi and Raqāši are supposed to have originated from Ḥ ād̠ima and Rāqiša,93 in order to decide whether he should treat them as diptotes or triptotes. Nor is it more likely that the speaker would ponder the etymology of conditional in to determine what its diminutive should be, if one assumes in the first place that the speaker would ever need to use that diminutive! The issues at hand are thus purely theoretical in nature and Sībawayhi is interested in them as a grammarian to confirm that frequency of usage should be the primary criterion in analogical extension even at the theoretical level, and to ascertain the potency of qiyās as a grammatical tool which explains and justifies usage and helps reconstruct what is not attested by the Arabs based on their manner of speech. In short, qiyās can be used as a sheer intellectual activity which has little practical value, as in some of Sībawayhi’s questions to his teacher, Ḫ alīl, in which the two men seem to check the validity of their own axioms rather than analyze any given usage.94 In all cases, Sībawayhi is certainly aware of the various levels at which qiyās may be applied, and it ought to be clear by now that he does not impose,

91 Ibid., III, 454; cf. note 3 by the editor concerning the missing radical from ibn and ism. 92 Ibid., III, 462. 93 Cf. Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ IV, 64; Ibn Hišām, Šarḥ 94. The concept of ʿadl, or deviation from another pattern, is more frequently associated with proper nouns of the patterns fuʿal, such as ʿUmar and Zufar, which are thought to have been altered from *ʿĀmir and *Zāfir (Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 477). 94 Kitāb III, 462; IV, 374.

56

chapter two

as did the naḥwiyyūn, any reconstructed form which runs contrary to the use of native speakers. Sībawayhi’s manifold use of qiyās demonstrates the centrality of this concept to his closely-knit system of grammatical analysis. In fact, the study of qiyās cannot be achieved in isolation of other basic concepts such as samāʿ, taqdīr, ʿilla, aṣl, etc. or of Sībawayhi’s effort to probe the mind of the speaker and to examine the intricate relationships among apparently unrelated forms, particles, utterances or phenomena of speech. The full potential of Sībawayhi’s use of qiyās will hopefully be more appreciated in our discussion of his other concepts and analytical methods. For example, the next concept which we shall discuss, i.e. ʿilla, is itself largely part of the process of qiyās, and the ḥ ikma (wisdom) which Sībawayhi seeks to uncover through taʿlīl by proposing reasons for linguistic phenomena has thus to be seen within that wider process. But perhaps the most essential function of qiyās within the general framework of Sībawayhi’s analytical strategies is its role in the establishment of what may be called “basic rules”.95 As a tool of analogical extension, qiyās ensures that widely attested data which the grammarian formulates as “rules” or “norms” are extended wherever possible by annexing to them apparently anomalous material which can be interpreted as harmonious with them. This would keep anomalies to a minimum—as dictated by the acceptance of reliable samāʿ which cannot be reconciled with the norm—and thus achieve a major purpose of Sībawayhi’s analysis of speech, namely, the preservation of these “basic rules” and their protection from deviant material in order for grammatical analysis to deal with a manageable set of norms which admit the least possible number of exceptions. 4. ʿIlla (Cause) The later grammarians identify four elements which make up the formal structure of qiyās: aṣl (origin, base), farʿ (subsidiary), ʿilla (cause, reason) and ḥ ukm (rule). According to Ibn al-Anbārī (d. 577/1181), every qiyās inevitably has these four elements (wa-lā budd li-kull qiyās min arbaʿat ašyāʾ: aṣl wa-farʿ wa-ʿilla wa-ḥ ukm).96 Aṣl and farʿ are at times referred to as maqīs ʿalayhi and maqīs respectively, and ʿilla is often called ʿilla 95 96

See our discussion of this concept in chapter III, section 2. Ibn al-Anbārī, Lumaʿ 93.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

57

ğāmiʿa (lit. connecting cause) because it joins the first two elements of qiyās through a perceived resemblance.97 As in jurisprudence, where a ruling is arrived at by extending a certain established principle to a case which the law has not specifically dealt with, based on some kind of similarity between them, a grammatical rule may be triggered by the resemblance which exists between two linguistic elements. To quote Ibn al-Anbārī’s illustration, the subject of a passive verb (nāʾib fāʿil ), as a farʿ, is likened to the subject of an active verb ( fāʿil ), as an aṣl, due to the common syntactic feature of isnād (predication) in verbal sentences. The result of this qiyās is a “rule” which extends to the nāʾib fāʿil the nominative case in analogy to the fāʿil.98 The use of qiyās, as we have seen in the previous section, is a main feature of the Kitāb. But unlike the later grammarians, Sībawayhi does not formally identify the elements which the process of qiyās involves in spite of the fact that they are indeed implicit in his discussions. As far as the term ʿilla is concerned, it occurs in the Kitāb 24 times in the sense of cause or reason,99 whereas the more abstract later term taʿlīl (causation; providing explanation or rationalization) is not used by Sībawayhi. The concept of ʿilla, however, is far more frequent in the Kitāb than the occurrence of the term itself since grammatical causes— irrespective of whether or not they are part of a process of qiyās—are normally implied or suggested by the use of li-, li-anna, d̠ālika anna, li-ayy šayʾ, min qibal anna, lima kānat, etc. or by the accusative of cause (maf ʿūl li-ağlihi) in words such as istiḫfāfan, istiġnāʾan, iktifāʾan, ʿiwaḍan min and karāhiyata an.100 Throughout the Kitāb, Sībawayhi’s interest in describing the speech of the Arabs is matched by a desire to justify usage by tracing the mental processes which the speaker performs in deciding to use a certain form, pattern, utterance, etc. In such an analytical system, it is natural that causes be constantly assigned to morphological and syntactical phenomena. A cursory glance at the first few pages of the Kitāb101 reveals

Suyūtị̄ , Iqtirāḥ 96. Ibn al-Anbārī, Lumaʿ 93 and Suyūṭī, Iqtirāḥ 96. 99 Troupeau (1976: ʿLL) counts 25 occurrences of the term in the Kitāb, but it should be noted that one of these occurrences (III, 53) has a general, and not a grammatical sense. The other sense of the term ʿilla is “defect” or “weakness”; it is not directly related to “cause” and occurs 13 times in the Kitāb. 100 For one example of each of these accusatives, see Kitāb II, 282; I, 126; II, 37; III, 334; I, 293 respectively. 101 See, in particular, I, 14–17. 97 98

58

chapter two

the extent to which Sībawayhi avails himself of the analytical tool of ʿilla. Without using the term itself, he justifies some of the major phenomena of case-endings and of indeclinability (bināʾ), most notably that (1) nouns cannot be in the jussive due to the tanwīn (nunation) which is suffixed to them since the Arabs want to avert the possibility of the tanwīn being elided (e.g. in construct or muḍāf ) in addition to the would-be absence of a vowel; (2) imperfect verbs cannot be in the genitive, in analogy to nouns which cannot be in the jussive and because the genitive is part of a construct-genitive relationship and alternates with tanwīn;102 (3) imperfect verbs are similar (ḍāraʿat) to nouns on two counts: the similarity in meaning between the two constructions la-yaf ʿalu and fāʿilun (cf. inna ʿAbdallāhi la-yaf ʿalu and inna ʿAbdallāhi la-fāʿilun where corroborative lām precedes the imperfect and the noun alike), and the similarity between the prefixation of sīn (or the introduction of sawfa) to the imperfect and the prefixation of al- to nouns since both introduce a change in meaning; (4) perfect verbs end with a vowel and not sukūn (quiescence or lack of vowel) because they bear some resemblance to imperfect verbs (and consequently to active participles) because they may occur in the same syntactic positions in which imperfect verbs and active participles occur, as exemplified by the two constructions hād̠ā rağulun ḍarabanā and hād̠ā rağulun yaḍribunā/ ḍāribunā; and (5) imperative verbs end with sukūn specifically because they are not syntactically used in constructions similar to those in 4 above (e.g. *hād̠ā rağulun iḍrib). Most of the ʿilal (pl. of ʿilla) which Sībawayhi proposes were adopted by later grammarians and are thus cited in the major grammatical texts from the third/ninth century onward as well as in works which deal almost exclusively with causation, such as Ibn al-Anbārī’s (d. 577/1181) Asrār al-ʿArabiyya and Ibn al-Warrāq’s (d. 381/991) ʿIlal al-naḥw.103 There are, of course, discrepancies among the various grammarians, including Sībawayhi, as to the ascription of certain phenomena to a particular ʿilla.

Sīrāfī (Šarḥ I, 100) explains Sībawayhi’s concept of muʿāqaba (i.e. alternation of two elements, that is, replacement of one by the other) in the expression (li-anna l-mağrūr . . . muʿāqib li-l-tanwīn; Kitāb I, 14) by arguing that tanwīn is suffixed to nouns in order to distinguish between what is munṣarif (triptotic) and what is not. The constructgenitive relationship, however, nullifies the need for tanwīn since nouns that are in the construct have the status of triptotic nouns. See also Fārisī, Aqsām 204–205 for other arguments in support of the fact that the imperfect cannot be in the genitive. 103 Compare, for instance, Sībawayhi’s ʿilal which are detailed above with those discussed in Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 26 ff., 315 ff. and Ibn al-Warrāq, ʿIlal 200 ff., 265 ff. 102

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

59

Yet the difference between Sībawayhi and later grammarians lies not in the proposed ʿilal but in the level of complexity which characterizes their discussion of these ʿilal. Anyone familiar with the major grammatical works which immediately follow the Kitāb—such as Mubarrad’s (d. 285/898) Muqtaḍab and Ibn al-Sarrāğ’s (d. 316/929) Uṣūl—or lengthy later works such as those of Astarābād̠ī’s (d. 686/1287) or Suyūt ị̄ ’s (d. 911/1505) readily recognizes the increasing level of theoretical complexity and the logically imposed criteria which characterize their discussion of causation. It appears that causation has progressively taken a life of its own in these works, so to speak, and, as a result, its relationship with the overall grammatical system considerably weakened. In contrast, Sībawayhi’s discussion of ʿilal is an integral part of his attempt to analyze speech and discover the mental processes which underlie the speaker’s choice of forms and utterances. His approach may be described as having a considerable intuitive component which, unlike the complexity characteristic of later grammatical works, is directly linked to his interest in describing and justifying usage by examining the speaker’s intention. To verify this, we shall examine two of his intuitively based arguments, namely, “lightening” (taḫfīf ) and the length of the utterance (expressed by ṭāla l-kalām), as well as the concept of lack of ambiguity which is also cited as a ʿilla in the Kitāb. One of the most frequent ʿilal cited by Sībawayhi is that of “lightening”. It is expressed by the root ḫ ff which occurs in several forms in the Kitāb, most notably aḫ aff (100 times), ḫ affafa (97 times), ḫ afīf (83 times), taḫfīf (53 times), istiḫfāf (22 times) and istaḫaffa (14 times).104 These occurrences refer to forms and utterances that are judged by Sībawayhi, largely on intuitive bases (cf. his aesthetically loaded terms such as ḥ asan/aḥ san, ğamīl/ağmal, qabīḥ /aqbaḥ , etc.), as being more phonetically tolerable or more syntactically economical. At the level of the speaker, let alone the grammarian, taḫfīf is thought to lack consistency or uniformity (cf. Sībawayhi’s expression wa-yastaḫiffūna l-šayʾ fī mawḍiʿ wa-lā yastaḫiffūnahu fī ġayrihi “The Arabs may find something to be light in one context but not in another”).105 This subjective, or even erratic, dimension of taḫ fīf—which confirms Sībawayhi’s own reliance on the intuitive analysis of the properties of speech—straddles

104 105

Troupeau (1976: Ḫ FF). Kitāb I, 210.

60

chapter two

phonology, morphology and syntax, and the most notable among its various types are the following: 1. Words which exhibit a perceived phonological change in comparison with their reconstructed forms had taḫfīf not been employed. For example, the reason why ʿAdawiyy is the nisba form (gentilic adjective) of ʿAdiyy is that the Arabs judged *adiyyiyy, with four consecutive yāʾs, to be “heavy” (istat̠qalū), hence taḫfīf.106 Furthermore, the phenomenon of idġām (assimilation) is largely explained on the grounds of taḫfīf, and Sībawayhi cites the principle of least effort (cf. kāna l-ʿamal min wağh wāḥ id aḫ aff ʿalayhim or similar expressions)107 to explain why forms like liʾīm, šihīd, siʿīd, liʿib, miḥ ik, etc.108 are used, or why *miwzān and *siwāṭ (plural of sawṭ) become mīzān and siyāṭ respectively.109 2. Words parts of which are supposedly elided. This covers the whole bāb of tarḫ īm (euphonic elision) since Sībawayhi begins his discussion of this phenomenon by citing taḫ fīf as the reason for the elision of the latter parts of certain words, mainly in vocation (wa-l-tarḫīm ḥ ad̠f awāḫir al-asmāʾ al-mufrada taḫfīfan).110 Similarly, arā, tarā, yarā and narā are explained as being the result of taḫfīf since their reconstructed forms are *arʾā, *tarʾā, *yarʾā and *narʾā respectively.111 In construction, kāʾinu aḫīka is judged by Ḫ alīl to be the lightened form of kāʾinun aḫ āka,112 and al-ḥ asanu in al-ḥ asanu l-wağhi—which Sībawayhi compares with its nunated counterpart ḥ asanun wağhan—is said to be construct despite its prefixed definite article because it was found to be “light” (yustaḫ aff fa-yuḍāf ).113 3. Utterances part of which are supposedly elided. For example, those Arabs who are reported to use al-Lāhi la-af ʿalanna instead of the more regular wa-l-Lāhi la-af ʿalanna are said to intend the jurative particle wāw but elide it for the sake of taḫfīf.114 Sībawayhi likens this to the frequent elision of rubba (as in wa-ğaddāʾa which allegedly

106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114

Ibid., III, 344. Ibid., IV, 108, 136, 335, 360, 365, 401, 437, 467. Ibid., IV, 108. Ibid., IV, 335, 360. Ibid., II, 239. Ibid., III, 546. Ibid., I, 166. Ibid., I, 201. Ibid., III, 498.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

61

originates from wa-rubba ğaddāʾa). Another example is the use of imtalaʾtu māʾan and tafaqqaʾtu šaḥ man which he assumes to be the lightened versions of *imtalaʾtu min al-māʾi and *tafaqqaʾtu min al-šaḥ mi.115 As many of the above examples suggest, there is a strong link in the Kitāb between the forms, utterances, etc. that are perceived to be the result of taḫfīf and frequency of usage. Sībawayhi declares that the Arabs would not avoid one type of heaviness (t̠iqal) and resort to another less frequently used one.116 It is also in the context of taḫfīf and kat̠ra that he arrives at the fundamental principle according to which forms that are most frequently used are those that are most likely to undergo change. Among the numerous occasions on which he states this principle are the change of *arʾā, *tarʾā, etc. into arā, tarā, etc. and the elision of one nūn from innanī, kaʾannanī, laʿallanī and lākinnanī which are the unlightened (but attested) counterparts of innī, kaʾannī, laʿallī and lākinnī.117 It is interesting to observe how Sībawayhi uses here the implied ʿilla of taḫfīf as an analytical tool which validates one of his more essential axioms, namely, that grammatical “rules” should be based mainly on what is more frequent (akt̠ar). On a wider scale, this is in line with his application of qiyās which itself embraces ʿilla as one of its constituent elements and which, as we have seen earlier, is closely associated with terms such as kat̠īr, akt̠ar, muṭtạ rid and mutlaʾibb.118 Another ʿilla which has a strong intuitive component in the sense that it is subject to the grammarian’s feel of the language, so to speak, has to do with ṭūl al-kalām (length of utterance) and is mostly indicated by the expression wa-kullamā/wa-lammā ṭāla l-kalām. That Sībawayhi is aware of the wide applicability of the principle of ṭūl al-kalām and the consequence this has on utterances is clear in a passage in which he notes that this phenomenon is illustrated by cases which have already been discussed in the Kitāb and that other cases will follow.119 Some of the examples of this syntactic phenomena are that (1) the longer the utterance, the weaker is the deferring (taʾḫīr) of the verb which governs

115

Ibid., I, 205. Ibid., III, 370–371. 117 Ibid., II, 369. Note that wa-lākinnanī in the text (l. 2) should be corrected to wa-lākinnī. 118 See above, 54. 119 Ibid., II, 317. 116

62

chapter two

a fronted object, as in Zaydan aḫ āka aẓunnu and Zaydan qāʾiman ḍarabtu;120 (2) the longer the utterance, the stronger is the case for using the accusative following a genitive in constructions such as hād̠ā ḍāribu Zaydin wa-ʿAmrin/wa-ʿAmran as compared with hād̠ā ḍāribu Zaydin fīhā wa-ʿAmran, due to the addition of fīhā;121 and (3) the longer the separation between the verb and its feminine subject, the better is the use of the masculine with that verb, as in ḥ aḍara l-qāḍiya mraʾatun.122 The study of ʿilla in the Kitāb reveals an essential aspect of Sībawayhi’s grammatical analysis which strongly distinguishes his approach from that of most of the later grammarians. This is the central role which he assigns to meaning, contrary to those grammarians who focus on formal aspects with little concern for their effect on meaning. As we shall see later,123 there has been a gradual degeneration of Sībawayhi’s approach which places meaning at the center stage of grammatical analysis, and formal considerations have more often than not usurped the role of meaning in the tradition. Among the various ʿilal which Sībawayhi cites, meaning is certainly the one which occurs most in the Kitāb. The following examples illustrate how similarity in meaning, according to Sībawayhi, can be a ʿilla which acts as a catalyst in the process of qiyās: 1. Duʿāʾ (invocation) is given the same status (manzila) as amr and nahy (command and prohibition) because of the oneness of meaning which sentences like Zaydan qaṭaʿa l-Lāhu yadahu and Zaydan li-yaqṭaʿi l-Lāhu yadahu express.124 2. The accusative in constructions which express praise, such as niʿma rağulan ʿAbdullāhi, is said to be analogical to the accusative in ḥ asbuka bihi rağulan ʿAbdullāhi because their meaning is one and the same.125 3. The jussive in the ğawāb (apodosis) of conditional sentences, such as in taʾtinī ātika, causes the corresponding verb in several types of sentences expressing requisition to be in the jussive. According to Ḫ alīl, the first verb in each of the sentences iʾtinī ātika, lā taf ʿal

120 121 122 123 124 125

Ibid., I, 120. Ibid., I, 174. Ibid., II, 38. Cf. chapter IV, section 3. Ibid., I, 142. Ibid., II, 175.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

63

yakun ḫ ayran laka, alā ta’tīnī uḥ addit̠ka, laytahu ʿindanā yuḥ addit̠nā and alā tanzilu tuṣib ḫ ayran126—which express amr (command), nahy (prohibition), istifhām (interrogation), tamannī (wish) and ʿarḍ (request) respectively—has the meaning of conditional in, and thus the implied ʿilla in each case is totally dependent on meaning. A similar example is words like ḥ asbuka, kafyuka, and šarʿuka which, Sībawayhi explains, have the same status (manzila) as command and prohibition on the basis of their similarity in meaning.127 4. Verbs which indicate qasam (oath), such as uqsimu, are likened to jurative wa-l-Lāhi because they share its meaning (fīhā maʿnā l-qasam). Due to this ʿilla, verbs which follow uqsimu may be preceded by corroborative lām and suffixed with energetic nūn, as in uqsimu la-af ʿalanna which is analogically constructed after wa-l-Lāhi la-af ʿalanna.128 Sībawayhi extends to the sphere of morphology the role of meaning as a ʿilla which triggers qiyās. The analogy involved here affects those words whose meaning is associated with a particular pattern. Thus, the adjective ḥ amīda (praiseworthy), feminine of ḥ amīd, is explained by its analogy to saʿīda (happy) and rašīda (rational) whose masculine forms saʿīd and rašīd are similar to ḥ amīd in meaning and form (kāna naḥwahumā fī l-maʿnā wa-ttafaqā fī l-bināʾ).129 What is meant here is that the feminine of ḥ amīd is expected to be ḥ amīd as well and not ḥ amīda, because ḥ amīd/ḥ amīda are passive participles, unlike saʿīd/ saʿīda and rašīd/rašīda which are active participles and normally have a -t feminine marker. Another example is the chapter which deals with illnesses associated with the paradigm wağiʿa yawğaʿu wağaʿan wa-huwa wağiʿun. The semantic similarity between wağiʿa (to suffer pain) and the verbs ḥ abiṭa (to fail, to come to nothing) and ḥ abiğa (to have a swollen belly, said of camels) is thus cited as the ʿilla for the congruence of their paradigms (cf. ḥ abiṭa yaḥ baṭu ḥ abaṭan wa-huwa ḥ abiṭun and ḥ abiğa yaḥ bağu ḥ abağan wa-huwa ḥ abiğun).130 Ultimately, contradiction in meaning is cited as a ʿilla which explains certain forms. For example, ṭiwā, a variant of ṭawā (hunger), is justified by analogy to its

126 127 128 129 130

Ibid., III, 93–94. Ibid., III, 100. Ibid., III, 104. Ibid., III, 648. Ibid., IV, 17.

64

chapter two

antonym šibaʿ (satiation) which distinctively has a kasra after its first radical,131 and the words aḫ laq (smooth), amlas (smooth) and ağrad (hairless) are thought to owe their pattern (i.e. af ʿal) to their antonym aḫ šan (rough, coarse).132 The striking interrelatedness among various concepts which Sībawayhi utilizes in the Kitāb manifests itself, in the context of maʿnā and ʿilla, in his use, as ʿilla, of a principle which recurs in various other contexts (such as taqdīr or suppletive insertion), and which may be called “lack of ambiguity” or “absence of confusion”. This is expressed mainly by derivatives of the roots fṣl and frq, and by indicating the absence of iltibās or naqḍ. Some of the more obvious examples are: (1) that the reason for having -ān, and not -ūn, as the marker of nominative dual is to separate (li-yufṣal) between dual and plural;133 (2) that the alif of lamentation (alif al-nudba) is changed in some cases to wāw and in other cases to yāʾ in order to distinguish (li-yafruqū) between masculine and feminine and between dual and plural, as in wā-ẓahrahūh and wā-ẓahrahāh;134 (3) that the preposition lām takes a kasra, rather than the original fatḥ a which appears in laka, lahu, etc., when it is not followed by a pronominal suffix (e.g. li-ʿAbdillāhi), or else it might be confused with the corroborative inceptive lām (lām al-ibtidāʾ; cf. inna hād̠ā li-ʿAlī and inna hād̠ā la-ʿAlī);135 and (4) that the fatḥ a which occurs before the single or doubled energetic nūn suffixed to a verb in the masculine plural, such as iʿlaman(na), is justified on the grounds that it prevents this verb from being confused (yaltabis) with a verb in the feminine or the plural, each of which has a vowel other than the fatḥ a, as in iʿlamin(na) and iʿlamun(na) respectively.136 It is noteworthy here that the term ʿillat farq (ʿilla of distinction) which the later grammarians use specifically to refer to the type of causation exemplified here does not occur in the Kitāb. As in many other cases, the later grammarians do not only raise the level of complexity of the arguments related to ʿilla as compared with Sībawayhi’s simpler and more “natural” approach, but also provide, as part of the dominant tendency towards formalization and standardization, technical terms for concepts which

131 132 133 134 135 136

Ibid., IV, 22. Ibid., IV, 27. Ibid., I, 17. Ibid., II, 224. Ibid., II, 376–377. Ibid., III, 518–519.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

65

in the Kitāb are implied but not overtly identified (cf. the terms ʿilla qiyāsiyya “analogical ʿilla”, ʿilla mutaʿaddiya “extensible ʿilla”, and ʿillat al-ʿilla “secondary ʿilla”). Closely related to the concept of “lack of ambiguity” or “absence of confusion” is the concept of ʿadam naqḍ al-maʿnā or “absence of contradiction of meaning” which refers to the permissibility of using either one of two different case-endings for one word in a given context without giving rise to a contradictory meaning. For example, in wa-laḥ mi ṭayrin mimmā yaštahūna wa-ḥ ūrun ʿīnun (“and the flesh of fowls, any that they may desire, and companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes”; Q 56:21–22), the nominative in wa-ḥ ūrun does not contradict the meaning which precedes it (i.e. in wa-laḥ mi, in the genitive) because both elements of the verse have the meaning of wa-lahum fīhā.137 In other words, the use of the nominative results in no shift in meaning (and hence in no contradiction with wa-laḥ mi) from what wa-ḥ ūrin, in the genitive, would have expressed. Similarly, in the two sentences mā lī illā Zaydan ṣadīqun wa-ʿAmran/wa-ʿAmrun and man lī illā abāka ṣadīqun wa-Zaydan/wa-Zaydun, the use of the nominative is said “not to contradict what is meant by the accusative” (lā yanquḍ mā turīd min al-maʿnā) because the speaker could have said (in the first sentence) wa-ʿAmrun lī, which would have expressed the same meaning as wa-ʿAmran.138 Sībawayhi’s approach to the whole concept of ʿilla, however, seems at times to stem merely from a desire to justify usage rather than from his typical insight into linguistic phenomena and relationships. Although this dimension of taʿlīl is much less frequent than his usual approach discussed above, it probably represents a very early step in the direction of the farfetched reasoning which characterizes most of the grammatical tradition as a whole. In justifying the use of kasra in the accusative of the second feminine plural, for example, Sībawayhi says that it is due to its analogy to the sound masculine plural where the accusative and genitive are both expressed by one marker, -īna. This similarity is enhanced by the analogy which he draws between -t- in -ātin and -ī- and -ū- in -īna and -ūna respectively, and between the nunation of the sound feminine plural and the nūn of the sound masculine plural.139

137 138 139

Ibid., I, 172. Ibid., II, 338. Ibid., I, 18.

66

chapter two

Equally farfetched is the ʿilla with which he proposes to explain the sukūn (quiescence) of the final consonant in qaṭt,̣ ʿan, ladun—allegedly their similarity to verbs (ḍāraʿat al-fiʿl, as in imperative ḫud̠ and zin) and their dissimilarity (tabāʿud) to nouns since these do not normally end with sukūn.140 One cannot help but notice in such cases the convoluted nature of Sībawayhi’s argument since sukūn seems to be both the reason, say, for the dissimilarity between qaṭt,̣ ʿan and ladun and nouns and the result of that dissimilarity. The apparent discrepancy in Sībawayhi’s approach to ʿilla is probably best interpreted within the larger framework of his overall system of grammatical analysis. It should first be remembered that what we have identified as his intuitively conceived analysis of linguistic phenomena— especially in qiyās, and more particularly in its ʿilla dimension—is unquestionably predominant in the Kitāb. Hence what should be sought after are those reasons which can explain the occurrence of his other arguments which do not share the more general characteristics of his approach. Two main reasons may be suggested. The first is Sībawayhi’s attempt to classify his data according to what he perceives to be a set of hierarchies whose various elements in a certain group occupy a welldefined position within each set. This important aspect of the Kitāb will be discussed at length later,141 but it can be illustrated here by the above example concerning the sound feminine plural ending which Sībawayhi believes is analogical to the sound masculine plural ending. The fact that he “extends” the treatment of the sound masculine plural to the second feminine plural, and not vice versa, stems from a hierarchical order in which the masculine is identified as the primary gender (cf. li-anna l-mud̠akkar awwal).142 According to Sībawayhi, this precedence explains a number of issues, such as why the masculine is “lighter” (aḫ aff ) than the feminine, why it more regularly accepts nunation, and why the feminine is derived from it and not the other way round. A different type of hierarchy is utilized in the other example with respect to qaṭt,̣ ʿan and ladun where words, based on their tripartite division into noun (ism), verb ( fiʿl) and particle (ḥ arf ), are hierarchically arranged according to the case-endings which each of them can receive. This is similar to the previously mentioned tripartite division among verbs, by

140 141 142

Ibid., II, 370–373. Cf. below, section 8. Ibid., I, 22.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

67

which the fatḥ a of the perfect is explained as a reflection of its medial position between the imperfect (whose case-endings almost match those of nouns) and the imperative (which ends only with sukūn).143 The second reason to be suggested is wider in scope and has to do with Sībawayhi’s concern for establishing the “wisdom” or “rationale” behind the linguistic phenomena under discussion. The later authors usually use the term ḥ ikma to refer to what they perceive as the rational factors which underlie usage.144 The term itself does not feature in the Kitāb, but it is strongly implied in the various arguments and hierarchies according to which Sībawayhi tries to provide rational justification for usage wherever possible. This would go a long way to explain those undeniably farfetched ʿilal which can hardly be attributed to an “intuitive” approach and which most likely have the sole purpose of defending usage on the basis of the sound judgment of the speakers. Based on this, there is good reason to accept the famous riwāya ascribed to Sībawayhi’s teacher, Ḫ alīl, and quoted by Zağğāğī (d. 337/949),145 because it implies that the function of the grammarian is to seek ḥ ikma in usage, by discovering the ʿilla which is inherently latent in every phenomenon. According to this riwāya, Ḫ alīl is asked whether the grammatical causes (ʿilal) which he applies in grammar are borrowed from the Arabs or are his own. He responds by asserting that the Arabs speak in accordance with their instinct (sağiyya) and nature (ṭibāʿ ), and that he tries to discover the ʿilal which reside in their minds. If he is right, he says, that is exactly his objective. The interesting part, however, comes when he considers the possibility of proposing the wrong ʿilla. He says: If there happens to be another cause, you could compare my situation to that of a judicious man who enters a house that is built with good proportions, a miracle of harmony and arrangement. Now, this man by reliable information or evident proof and manifest arguments is convinced of the sound judgment of its builder and whenever he sees some part of the

143

See above, 58. Most notable among the later authors is Ibn Ğinnī (d. 392/1002) who persistently ascribes ḥ ikma to the Arabs by highlighting the intellectual basis of their linguistic usage. In the opening remarks of his Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ (I, 1), he refers to the ḥ ikma which has been “deposited” in this noble language (mā ūdiʿathu hād̠ihi l-luġa l-šarīfa min ḫ aṣāʾiṣ al-ḥ ikma). He also underlines the particular ḥ ikma embodied in various topics under discussion as, for example, in the “pattern blending” of dialects (tarakkub al-luġāt; ibid., I, 374–375, 380–381) and the virtual tangency between form and meaning (imsās al-lafẓ ašbāh al-maʿānī; ibid., II, 152–168, esp. 162, 164). For more details, see Baalbaki (2005a: 96 ff.) and below, 274. 145 Zağğāğī, Ῑḍāḥ 65–66. 144

68

chapter two house, he says: ‘He did this according to such-and-such a cause or because of this or that reason’. He says so on account of a cause which occurs to him and which he believes might be the truth. It is possible that the wise builder of the house acted, indeed, according to the cause mentioned by the man who entered the house, but it is equally well possible that he acted according to some other cause. Nevertheless, what was mentioned by the man [who entered the house] could just as well have been the right cause. So, if someone has in mind another cause for grammar than the ones I mentioned, let him come forth with it!146

What Ḫ alīl does not specify in his simile, however, is how far the grammarian can go in seeking ʿilal in order to determine the underlying ḥ ikma in each case. As far as Sībawayhi is concerned, it seems that his insistence on pinpointing ʿilal to a host of grammatical phenomena prompted him at times to abandon his method of analyzing the speakers’ intention and reconstructing the relationships which were on their minds when a certain usage came into existence. That the jussive, for example, in the apodosis of conditional sentences “spills” into other types of construction, as discussed above, is certainly based on Sībawayhi’s own observation of the syntactical and semantic resemblance which may well have triggered this qiyās. In contrast, it is unlikely that Sībawayhi wants his reader to believe that the tripartite hierarchies of nouns, verbs and particles, or those of the imperfect, perfect and imperative truly exist in the minds of the speakers. Such arguments can only be devised by the grammarian who, according to Ḫ alīl, is like a judicious man whose ascription of wisdom to its builder (here, the speaker) may or may not be correct. One should accordingly always distinguish between these two different but interrelated types of ʿilla in the Kitāb. As for the later grammarians, their taʿlīl is mostly of the second type and their highly prescriptive statements involve speculation that can have very little to do with the empirical facts of usage. 5. Taqdīr (Suppletive Insertion) After having examined the main characteristics of samāʿ, qiyās and ʿilla in the Kitāb, one can more meaningfully examine the various aspects of the relationships among Sībawayhi’s methods of grammatical analysis. Taqdīr is unquestionably one of those methods which can be

146

Translation in Versteegh (1995: 89).

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

69

studied from the perspective of their relationship with a considerable number of tools and concepts. This section will therefore be restricted to a few observations which, it is hoped, will demonstrate how closely knit Sībawayhi’s analytical tools and methods are within the general framework of his approach to the study of speech, and contribute to the argument that the Kitāb is the product of a highly organized plan which Sībawayhi envisaged and which manifests itself in the internal unity or integrity of the whole work as we shall see later in more detail.147 Perhaps the primary meaning of the term taqdīr is its use by Sībawayhi to substitute the hamza (glottal stop) by a ʿayn in order to clarify the patterns of certain words. Because the hamza is elided or softened148 on a wide scale, Sībawayhi’s aim is to make sure that the hamzas in the morphological patterns under discussion are perceived as fully pronounced consonants (cf. his term taḥ qīq which means realization or actualization),149 and he thus replaces each hamza by its “stable” counterpart, ʿayn. For example, the taqdīr of irʾan, šanūʾa/šanaʾiyy, ğayʾan and riduʾ is *idʿan, *šanūʿa/*šanaʿiyy, *ğayʿan and *riduʿ.150 It is probably this phonological use of the term—which involves the allocation of a consonantal value to hamza—that gave rise to its more widespread use as an essential tool of syntactical analysis. As a syntactical tool, taqdīr or “suppletive insertion”151 also involves a process of allocation, specifically the ascription to supposedly elided elements a virtual effect on other elements which feature in the utterance. Once identified, the restoration of the missing parts of the utterance is used to explain various aspects of the relationship among its constituents. The term taqdīr occurs in the Kitāb on no more than three occasions,152

147

See chapter III, section 8. Cf. the term hamzat bayna bayna (betwixt and between hamza) in Kitāb III, 541 ff. 149 Ibid., III, 541, 551, 553, etc. 150 Ibid., III, 318, 339, 552; IV, 177. Note that *idʿan may be a scribal error since one would expect irʿan with a rāʾ to correspond perfectly to irʾan. 151 I first suggested the term “suppletive insertion” in Baalbaki (1979: 7 ff.). This term had since been generally adopted by researches; cf. Suleiman (1999: 146, 223) and Carter (2004: 140). Levin (1997: 154), however, seems to have missed the relationship between the suggested term and its reference to one particular sense out of the several senses which the term has in the grammatical tradition, namely, the assumption of linguistic elements, notably ʿawāmil, which affect actually pronounced elements. He alternatively provides a lengthy “definition” (not translation) of taqdīr (p. 151), which may well be correct, but which should not negate the necessity of translating a particular sense of the term whenever needed. See also Baalbaki (2005b: 45, n. 22). 152 Kitāb II, 148, 176, 178. 148

70

chapter two

but the scarcity of the term does not mean that taqdīr is “at best an insignificant element in Sībawayhi’s system”.153 In fact, the concept of taqdīr is very frequently expressed in the Kitāb in contexts where terms such as iḍmār (suppression), ḥ ad̠f (deletion), tamt̠īl (representation, approximation), and niyya (intention) occur, or by expressions such as arādū (they wanted), kaʾannahum qālū (as if they said) and kaʾannahum qad takallamū bihi (as if they virtually uttered; i.e. the particle).154 Suffice it to point out the frequency of occurrence of the terms iḍmār (90 times) and muḍmar (76 times) in syntactic contexts and the recurrence of the terms ḥ ad̠afa (553 times) and ḥ ad̠f (214 times) in various contexts including syntactic ones.155 The congruence between taqdīr and some of the above-mentioned terms is apparent in their occurrence in identical statements (cf., for example, kaʾannahu fī l-taqdīr wa-in kāna lā yutakallam bihi and fa-hād̠ā tamt̠īl wa-in lam yutakallam bihi).156 On one occasion, tamt̠īl, iḍmār, niyya, and kaʾannahum qālū occur side by side in the discussion of one elided element.157 Hereafter, we shall conveniently use taqdīr—which became the standard term throughout the tradition—with reference to those instances in which it is implied or suggested by one or more of the terms which can replace it. The first and surely most important concept to which taqdīr is related is that of the preservation of “basic rules” as alluded to in the previous section on qiyās.158 Much of the material which is related to taqdīr seems to have been sparked by Sībawayhi’s persistence in demonstrating the wide applicability of these rules. To achieve this, he intervenes in certain constructions and proposes the theoretical restoration of their supposedly elided elements in order to interpret the phenomena under discussion in a way which minimizes what he regards as anomalies that

153 Carter (2004: 140); cf. also Carter (1972a: 74, n. 1; 1973a: 152, n. 47; 1991a: 127). It should also be noted that the concepts of taqdīr and iḍmār may have not been alien to grammarians as early as ʿAbdallāh b. Abī Isḥāq (d. 117/735) to whom Sībawayhi attributes the explanation of certain constructions by the restoration of elided elements (Kitāb I, 279; II, 77). Furthermore, taqdīr seems to have become a major tool of syntactic analysis as early as the time of Sībawayhi’s teachers, such as Yūnus b. Ḥ abīb (d. 182/798) (ibid., I, 292, 346; II, 71, 236–237). For a more general discussion of taqdīr in the grammatical tradition, see the chapter on ellipsis in Owens (1988: 186–198). On the relationship between taqdīr and mağāz, see Heinrichs (1984: 123–124). 154 See these two expressions, for example, in Kitāb III, 28–29. 155 Troupeau (1976: Ḍ MR & Ḥ D̠ F). 156 Kitāb II, 176; III, 34; cf. also I, 83, 312; cf. Hārūn, Šarḥ 184. 157 Ibid., III, 28–29. 158 See above, 56.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

71

do not conform to the “norm”. This process is particularly connected with another major grammatical tool, namely, ʿāmil/ʿawāmil, or the operants to which a virtual effect on constructions is attributed irrespective of whether they are uttered or not.159 The two illustrative examples of rubba and yā will be discussed below, but one needs to introduce here one of the essential axioms related to ʿamal (government, regimen) and to the restoration of elements that are elided from the utterance. Sībawayhi asserts that operants which affect nouns do not affect verbs in the same way (mā ʿamila fī l-asmāʾ lam yaʿmal fī hād̠ihi l-af ʿāl ʿalā ḥ add ʿamalihi fī l-asmāʾ), and that operants which cause the subjunctive and the jussive in verbs do not affect nouns (mā yaʿmal fī l-af ʿāl fa-yanṣibuhā aw yağzimuhā lā yaʿmal fī l-asmāʾ).160 This distinction between particles which govern verbs and those which govern nouns has been formulated by the later grammarians as a general principle based on the concept of iḫtiṣāṣ (specialization). According to this principle, a particle can cause ʿamal only if it is “specialized” in either verbs or nouns, but not both parts of speech. Thus, lan and lam cause the subjunctive and jussive respectively because they “specialize” in verbs and cannot precede nouns. Contrarily, prepositions are said to govern nouns because they do not precede verbs as these cannot be in the genitive.161 To use the terminology of those authors who deal with the uṣūl (fundamentals) of grammar, the distinction between operants based on their iḫtiṣāṣ is an aṣl (origin), and consequently any deviation from it would be a farʿ (subsidiary). In other words, this distinction is a “basic rule” which the theory is expected to defend by interpreting apparently deviant data in a manner which denies the deviation and reinforces the rule.162 If a particle that happens to be classified as non-specialized is syntactically associated with a certain type of government, the grammarians do not hesitate to intervene in the construction and restore a deleted, yet

159 The virtual effect of elided operants is confirmed by their comparison with actually uttered ones, as in wa-baladin/wa-rubba baladin, Zaydan/ʿalayka Zaydan and al-hilālu/ hād̠ā l-hilālu where the supposed absence of the operant does not annul its function (Kitāb I, 106). See also Baalbaki (2005b: 46–55) for a discussion of the relationship between taqdīr and ʿawāmil (particles, verbs and nouns). 160 Kitāb III, 10; cf. III, 5. See also Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Uṣūl I, 97. 161 The later authors largely adopted Sībawayhi’s justification of ʿamal based on the distinction between the particles which govern verbs and those which govern nouns. See, for example, Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 253 (prepositions), 328 (an), 333 (lam) and 336 (in). 162 Cf. Baalbaki (2005b: 47).

72

chapter two

specialized particle to which regimen is attributed without disturbing the norms of government pertaining to particles. The two illustrative examples from Sībawayhi’s Kitāb can now be discussed in light of the principle of iḫtiṣāṣ: 1. Constructions which begin with wāw followed by the genitive obviously need to be interpreted unless one is prepared to attribute the genitive to the wāw itself. Sībawayhi gives several examples of this wāw, such as wa-baladin and wa-ğaddāʾa, and says that an implicit rubba causes the genitive, since one intends (turīd ) to say wa-rubba baladin and wa-rubba ğaddāʾa.163 The problem which Sībawayhi faces with such constructions is that, at face value, they do not conform to the principle of iḫtiṣāṣ which he establishes—albeit without an accompanying technical term—in his distinction between operants which govern nouns and those which govern verbs. The wāw, which is mainly used as a conjunction, can precede either nouns or verbs and accordingly does not satisfy the precondition of ʿamal, namely, iḫtiṣāṣ. Obviously, the attribution of the genitive in wa-baladin to the wāw would shatter the norm which governs the genitive since the particles164 which cause it cannot precede verbs. Sībawayhi resolves this difficulty by the restoration of rubba165 and thus justifies the genitive by attributing it to a particle which precedes only nouns (cf. his observation, in a different context, that *rubba yaqūlu is impermissible and that -mā has to be suffixed to rubba if it is to precede verbs).166 The choice of rubba to the exclusion of other particles must have been facilitated by (1) the close proximity in meaning between the two types of constructions wa-baladin and wa-rubba baladin, both of which are attested (cf. the concept of ʿadam naqḍ al-maʿnā, or absence of contradiction of meaning, discussed above),167 and (2) the fact that rubba can only precede indefinite nouns168 and is

163

Kitāb I, 106; II, 163–164; III, 128, 498; cf. I, 263; III, 9, 104. Our use of “particles” here is intended to exclude adverbs (ẓurūf ) and nouns (asmāʾ) which are followed by the genitive, as in qabla ġadin and ṭaʿāmu Zaydin. 165 This view is generally adopted by the Basran grammarians; cf. Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf I, 376 ff. The Kufans, generally portrayed as less keen on minimizing deviations from “basic rules”, are reported to have attributed the genitive to the wāw itself. 166 Kitāb III, 115; cf. III, 156. 167 Cf. above, 65. 168 Ibid., I, 427; II, 55, 274. 164

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

73

thus applicable to every construction of the type wa-baladin since wāw is typically followed by indefinite nouns. 2. Vocative constructions must also have presented Sībawayhi (and the early grammarians) with a challenge concerning the operant causing the various case-endings that are associated with the vocative particle yā. Sībawayhi could not possibly ascribe to yā an effect on the vocative, for although it is a particle which precedes only nouns,169 it cannot explain the discrepancies exhibited by the caseendings of the various attested types. As a single word, the vocative takes the nominative endings of mabnī or indeclinable nouns (e.g. yā Zaydu/Zaydāni/Zaydūna), but in annexed (muḍāf ) or quasi-annexed (šabīh bi-l-muḍāf in later terminology) constructions, it takes the accusative endings of muʿrab or declinable nouns (e.g. yā aḫ ānā, yā ʿAbdallāhi, yā ḍāriban rağulan, etc.). To complicate matters further, the mufrad is nunated in certain cases, notably when it is not specifically intended ( ġayr maqṣūd bi-l-nidāʾ, in later terminology)—as in a blind man’s call: yā rağulan ḫud̠ bi-yadī,170 where no particular rağul is intended—and when it is followed by an adjective—as in yā rağulan ṣāliḥ an.171 Sībawayhi undoubtedly preferred the insertion of an operant common to all these cases as this would restore unity at the level of underlying structure, to the diversity which characterizes the surface structure.172 The suppletion of a verb would provide a common operant to all types of construction, regardless of the actual case-ending in each of them. By maintaining that the grammatical position of the vocative is accusative (mawḍiʿ al-nidāʾ naṣb),173 Sībawayhi can claim that the different case-endings which are associated with the various types of vocatives are underlyingly 169 Note that when yā precedes verbs, as in alā yā sqiyānī, it is considered by Sībawayhi to be a premonitory particle (tanbīh); Kitāb IV, 224. It is not clear from the context whether Sībawayhi, like some other grammarians, also allows that yā in such constructions be considered a vocative particle on the assumption that the vocative (e.g. rağulāni) is elided. 170 See this example, among others, in Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 434–435. 171 Sībawayhi (Kitāb II, 182) cites the “length” of this construction (i.e. as compared with yā rağulu) as the reason for the accusative in rağulan, and compares these two constructions with qablu/baʿdu and qablaka/baʿdaka, where the “length” arguably results in the accusative. See also Baalbaki (2005b: 50). 172 Although some grammarians, such as Mubarrad and Fārisī, are reported to have attributed regimen to the vocative particle itself (Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 227; Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ I, 127; Suyūṭī, Hamʿ I, 171), the taqdīr of a deleted verb is the most widely held view among the grammarians. 173 Kitāb II, 233; cf. II, 182.

74

chapter two the same because these vocatives are direct objects of the elided verb unādī or the like.174

Among the concepts with which taqdīr is closely connected are those of ʿadam naqḍ al-maʿnā and the hierarchical arrangement of linguistic elements. As far as Sībawayhi’s principle of “absence of contradiction of meaning” is concerned, the introduction of rubba between wāw and the genitive in wa-baladin/wa-rubba baladin, as pointed out earlier, stems from the semantic proximity between the two constructions. Similarly, it is implied that the introduction of a verb between yā and the vocative is semantically justified simply because yā itself expresses vocation. In the more complex constructions raʾaytu Zaydan wa-ʿAmran kallamtuhu, raʾaytu ʿAbdallāhi wa-Zaydan marartu bihi, laqītu Qaysan wa-Bakran aḫ ad̠tu abāhu, and laqītu Ḫ ālidan wa-Zaydan ištaraytu lahu t̠awban,175 the accusative in the noun which follows the conjunction in each case is attributed to an elided verb which intervenes between that noun and the conjunction.176 Thus, the first sentence may be interpreted as *raʾaytu Zaydan wa-kallamtu ʿAmran kallamtuhu since, as Sībawayhi explains, the first part of the construction begins with a verb (mabnī ʿalā l-fiʿl). Hence it is better for the speakers (aḥ san ʿindahum) to equally begin the second part with a verb. This elided verb, however, has an actual effect which matches the effect of uttered operants, hence the accusative in ʿAmran. In support of this argument, Sībawayhi asserts that the introduction of kallamtu does not contradict the meaning (lā yanquḍ al-maʿna law banaytahu ʿalā l-fiʿl ). It is important to note that Sībawayhi, in an attempt to avoid any semantic difference between the uttered verb and the assumed verb, proposes, wherever possible, the restoration of a verb derived from the same root as that of the uttered verb, as in wa-kallamtu in the above example. Even if what appears at the level of surface structure is a noun and not a verb, he assumes the existence of a verb which is derived from the same root as that noun. A most significant example is that of constructions like lahu ṣawtun ṣawta ḥ imārin in which he ascribes the accusative in ṣawta to the elided verb yuṣawwitu which the speaker supposedly has in mind based on the whole meaning of the construction ( fa-ḥ amalahu ʿalā l-naṣb 174 The verb which the grammarians usually restore is unādī, adʿū or urīdu; cf. Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 227; Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ I, 127; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 171. 175 Kitāb I, 88. 176 Ibid., I, 88–89.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

75

fa-naṣabahu).177 Two other verbs are mentioned in Sībawayhi’s expression kaʾannahu tawahhama baʿda qawlihi lahu ṣawtun: yuṣawwitu ṣawta l-ḥimāri aw yubdīhi aw yuḫriğuhu ṣawta ḥimārin. The two verbs yubdīhi and yuḫriğuhu are cited to clarify the meaning of yuṣawwitu on its first occurrence, and although, as transitive verbs, they can justify the accusative in ṣawta, it is clear from Sībawayhi’s other examples in the same chapter, from the occurrence of yuṣawwitu alone on other occasions,178 and from his restoration of verbs which match the uttered verb in a variety of constructions,179 that he normally intends the assumed verb to be analogous to the uttered noun. The relationship between taqdīr and the hierarchical order which Sībawayhi often establishes in arranging linguistic elements180 can perhaps be best exemplified in connection with the concept of ibtidāʾ (topicality). This refers to the mubtadaʾ (topic, or subject of a nominal sentence) which normally is in the nominative181 and is not governed by any uttered operant. Sībawayhi describes ibtidāʾ as the first “state” of the noun (al-ism awwal aḥ wālihi l-ibtidāʾ) and hence any other “state” has to be explained by an operant which causes the nominative (rāfiʿ ) or the accusative (nāṣib) or the genitive ( ğārr), as the case may be.182 The example which Sībawayhi gives is the construction ʿAbdullāhi munṭaliqun which may be changed into raʾaytu ʿAbdallāhi munṭaliqan, kāna ʿAbdullāhi munṭaliqan and marartu bi-ʿAbdillāhi munṭaliqan. The precedence of ibtidāʾ over the other “states”, he argues, is similar to that of the singular over the dual and the plural (cf. al-wāḥ id awwal al-ʿadad) and of the indefinite over the definite. In his analysis of speech, Sībawayhi applies his assumptions concerning ibtidāʾ to the process of taqdīr. Faced with the two constructions Zaydan ḍarabtuhu and Zaydun ḍarabtuhu, he supplies an operant to explain the accusative in Zaydan (also in this case a verb derived from the same root as the uttered verb, hence ḍarabtu), but does not supply any operant to explain the 177

Ibid., I, 355–356. Ibid., I, 360, 362. 179 See below, 82–83. 180 See below, section 8, for a discussion of group membership in the Kitāb. 181 I use the word “normally” here because there are a few words which are recognized as mubtadaʾ even if they are preceded by a preposition. One example which Sībawayhi mentions is bi-ḥ asbika which he considers to be equivalent to ḥ asbuka and hence a mubtadaʾ (Kitāb II, 293; cf. III, 268). This explanation is based on the assumption that the preposition bi- only affects the uttered word, hence the genitive, but not the status of ibtidāʾ which the word retains. 182 Kitāb I, 23–24. 178

76

chapter two

nominative in Zaydun because this nominative indicates ibtidāʾ. Another case which is somewhat similar is that of constructions which admit two alternative case-endings, such as lahu ṣawtun ṣawta/ṣawtu ḥ imārin. The accusative in this construction, as we have seen above, is explained by the restoration of the verb yuṣawwitu, but in the case of the nominative no verb is supplied (wa-lam turid fiʿlan wa-lā iḍmārahu).183 Even in the case of constructions in which the noun is nominative but not mubtadaʾ, Sībawayhi resorts to taqdīr since the noun does not express ibtidāʾ, i.e. it is the subject of a verbal, not a nominal, sentence. This is why he interprets, for example, the construction a-ʿAbdullāhi ḍaraba aḫūhu Zaydan as *a-ḍaraba ʿAbdullāhi ḍaraba aḫūhu Zaydan184 given that the nominative does need a rāfiʿ unless it is mubtadaʾ. So far we have examined the relationship between taqdīr and the concepts of “basic rules”, operants, absence of contradiction of meaning, and hierarchy. To demonstrate how Sībawayhi brings together all of these concepts into his linguistic analysis, we shall briefly identify the theoretical basis of his taqdīr of an to justify subjunctive verbs. The chapters which deal with elided an, particularly after fāʾ, provide an unparalleled opportunity to examine how these concepts are collectively put into operation in support of the argument that it is an that causes the verb to be in the subjunctive, and not the prepositions (lām, ḥ attā, and kay) or the conjunctions (wāw, fāʾ and aw)185 which precede the subjunctive. The prepositions may be exemplified by the construction ğiʾtuka li-taf ʿala.186 For Sībawayhi to ascribe the subjunctive to li- would be tantamount to annulling the distinction which he draws between operants which govern nouns and those which govern verbs, or what the later grammarians refer to as iḫtiṣāṣ. Sībawayhi argues that the subjunctive must be ascribed not to li-—since it is one of the particles that govern nouns only and thus cause the genitive (cf. li-anna l-lām wa-ḥ attā innamā yaʿmalāni fī-l-asmāʾ fa-yağurrāni)187—but to an elided particle without which the utterance would be absurd or impossible (wa-law lam tuḍmirhā la-kāna l-kalām muḥ ālan). This particle is an 183

Ibid., I, 361. Ibid., I, 102. 185 Later authors add t̠umma to these conjunctions (e.g. Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 489 and Ušmūnī, Šarḥ III, 571). For Sībawayhi, however, t̠umma is not one of the conjunctions after which an is suppressed (Kitāb III, 89; cf. also III, 16 where he refutes Ḫ alīl’s view that an can be assumed after id̠an). 186 Kitāb III, 5 ff. 187 Ibid., III, 6. 184

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

77

muḍmara (elided an), which not only explains the genitive, but also restores to li- its usual function of governing the genitive, since an and the following verb have the status (manzila) of one noun; in other words, ğiʾtuka li-taf ʿala is equivalent to ğiʾtuka li-fiʿlika. An elided an is also proposed by Sībawayhi with the two other prepositions ḥ attā and kay which precede nouns—as in ḥ attā-mah and kay-mah—when they are followed by a verb in the subjunctive, as in (our) ğiʾtuka ḥ attā/ kay arāka. The chapter on the fāʾ which precedes the subjunctive, however, is by far the most elaborate attempt by Sībawayhi to justify the restoration of an elided an, and it comprises his most detailed arguments on the theoretical basis of this restoration.188 We shall propose below four reasons for the attribution of regimen to an muḍmara, and these correspond to the four concepts whose relationship with taqdīr has already been pointed out: 1. “Basic rules”: The assumption of an after fāʾ, wāw and aw confirms their original use as conjunctions and not particles which cause the subjunctive. Just as li- is confirmed as a preposition in li-taf ʿala due to the latter’s equivalence to the verbal noun which an and the verb represent (i.e. li-fiʿlika), fāʾ is confirmed as a conjunction due to the equivalence between an and the subjunctive verb on the one hand and the verbal noun on the other. In the model sentence lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī, the verbal noun which obtains from the assumed an and the subjunctive verb is said to be coupled189 to another verbal noun in the representation or approximation (tamt̠īl ), which explains the construction, but which, Sībawayhi insists, is not used by the Arabs. Accordingly, the model sentence is interpreted as laysa yakūnu minka ityānun fa-ḥ adīt̠un, where fāʾ has its normal grammatical function as a conjunction because it couples the assumed

188 Ibid., III, 28–41. For a more detailed study of the chapter on fāʾ and the theoretical basis of the restoration of an, see Baalbaki (2001: 186–209). The above discussion of this restoration is partly based on that study. 189 Sībawayhi uses the roots ḍmm (an taḍumm al-fiʿl or similar phrases; Kitāb III, 28, 31) and šrk (tušrik bayna l-awwal wa-l-āḫir; ibid., III, 41, 47) to express the idea of coupling in the illustrative constructions which he proposes. It should be noted that these two roots are also used by Sībawayhi to refer to the function of the conjunction fāʾ in constructions where no subjunctive verb is involved (e.g. al-fāʾ . . . taḍumm al-šayʾ ilā l-šayʾ; ibid., IV, 217, and al-fāʾ ašrakat baynahumā; ibid., I, 438). See also Baalbaki (2001: 189, n. 6).

78

chapter two

verbal noun ityānun, which Sībawayhi postulates, to the second one, ḥ adīt̠un, which is equivalent to an and tuḥ addit̠anī together. Sībawayhi could have surely avoided this complex interpretation in favor of a much simpler one, such as the attribution of the subjunctive to fāʾ itself. This would, however, have undermined his method of limiting divergence from linguistic phenomena—in this case the regimen of particles—and adhering to “basic rules” to which he tries to accommodate usage wherever possible. Sībawayhi’s devotion to the restoration of an after fāʾ, wāw and aw which precede the subjunctive led him to argue that, were any of these particles the cause of the subjunctive, one would still need a conjunction 190 (i.e. for conjoining the two verbal nouns ityān and ḥ adīt̠). 2. Operants: The assertion that fāʾ, wāw and aw in the constructions lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī, lā taʾkuli l-samaka wa-tašraba l-labana, and la-alzamannaka aw tuʿṭiyanī191 are indeed conjunctions and not particles that govern the accusative is in line with Sībawayhi’s theory on ʿawāmil. In the case of li- in the construction ğiʾtuka li-taf ʿala, Sībawayhi is keen to assume an in order to confirm that li- is a preposition which governs the genitive by virtue of its prefixation to nouns only. The case of fāʾ, wāw and aw, however, is different because these three particles are conjunctions that can precede both nouns and verbs, and, according to the theory, cannot by themselves cause the subjunctive, or any other type of regimen for that matter. But Sībawayhi still has to confirm that these particles are indeed conjunctions, and this explains why he proposes two verbal nouns which are conjoined by the relevant particle (in the case of fāʾ: ityān and ḥ adīt̠). 3. Absence of contradiction of meaning: The restoration of an, rather than any other particle which normally governs the subjunctive, is surely related to the concept of ʿadam naqḍ al-maʿnā. For example, neither lan nor id̠an would be appropriate from this perspective since the first indicates a negative sense and the second introduces an answer to a question. Unlike these particles, an is “neutral” because it simply transforms the verb to its verbal noun equivalent without introducing a new dimension to the meaning of the construction. In his chapter on the equivalence between an and its verb on the

190 191

Ibid., III, 41. Ibid., III, 28, 42, 46.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

79

one hand and a verbal noun on the other, Sībawayhi explains that a construction like an taʾtiyanī ḫ ayrun laka (“To visit me is good for you”) is equivalent in meaning to al-ityānu ḫ ayrun laka (“Visiting is good for you”).192 That an introduces no change or contradiction in meaning may also be inferred from the recorded data which he cites in support of his position and which involve the restoration of the preposition bi-. Sībawayhi cites three lines of poetry—two by Farazdaq and a third by Zuhayr b. Abī Sulmā—in which bi- is elided but still causes the genitive.193 One of Farazdaq’s lines (also attributed to al-Aḫwaṣ al-Riyāḥī) is: mašāʾimu laysū muṣliḥ īna ʿašīratan *wa lā nāʿibin illā bi-baynin ġurābuhā (“Ill-omened they are—they conciliate not a fractious tribe, nor does their crow croak but to herald separation”). Sībawayhi explains that nāʿibin is in the genitive because the speakers intend (nawaw) the preposition bi- before the noun in similar constructions. He supports his argument by asserting that bi- can be assumed before muṣliḥ īna, obviously because this preposition occurs very frequently with the predicate of laysa. The whole argument rests on Sībawayhi’s assertion that bi- does not change the meaning of the construction (lā tuġayyir al-maʿnā). As an analytical tool of syntactical analysis, taqdīr for Sībawayhi is subservient to meaning and that is precisely the reason why he is keen to deny any semantic effect which may be caused by the linguistic elements which he assumes to be elided from the utterance. 4. Hierarchy: As part of the hierarchical order according to which Sībawayhi organizes groups of linguistic elements, certain particles are described as umm (pl. ummahāt, lit. mothers) or as the aṣl (origin, base) of usage. As such, each of these particles may be referred to as the “basic” member of a group as we shall see later.194 For example, umm ḥ urūf al-ğazāʾ, or the basic conditional particle, is identified as in because it is the only conditional particle which is used exclusively in a conditional sense.195 As far as an is concerned, Sībawayhi does not explicitly refer to it as umm ḥ urūf al-naṣb, but its special status within the group of particles that cause the subjunctive is clear since it is the only particle which he restores to explain the subjunctive, as with fāʾ, wāw, aw, ḥ attā, etc. That an to Sībawayhi is the umm 192 193 194 195

Ibid., III, 153. Ibid., III, 29. See below, 127–128. Ibid., I, 134; III, 63.

80

chapter two of the group can also be inferred from Ḫ alīl’s (d. 175/791) view, as attributed to him by Mubarrad (d. 285/898), that no verb at all (albatta) can be in the subjunctive without an implicit (muḍmar) or explicit (muẓhar) an.196 Later sources, it must be noted, frequently refer to an as the umm or aṣl of the group of particles that govern the subjunctive.197

Firmly rooted in his overall grammatical system, Sībawayhi uses taqdīr for two major purposes of his syntactical analysis, namely, the acceptance of attested usage and the “disclosure” of underlying harmony in several types of constructions. Because most later grammarians use taqdīr as part of their study of the formal aspects of the utterance with little concern for meaning, and because some of them readily dismiss attested usage or intervene heavily in the structure to interpret apparently deviant phenomena, it has been generally assumed that taqdīr is directly opposed to samāʿ in the Arab grammatical tradition.198 While this may well be true of the works of most later grammarians, particularly after the corpus was closed, it certainly does not apply to Sībawayhi since his use of taqdīr is not antithetical to samāʿ, but indeed complementary to it. Through taqdīr, Sībawayhi tries not only to discover the niyya (intention) of the speaker, but also to confirm the acceptability of attested material. The Kitāb abounds with examples which Sībawayhi could have easily dismissed as unorthodox, but which he painstakingly interprets with the aid of taqdīr in order to justify usage. To illustrate this method, we can consider the line attributed to Hišām, brother of D̠ ū l-Rumma: hiya l-šifāʾu li-dāʾī law ẓafirtu bihā *wa-laysa minhā šifāʾu l-dāʾi mabd̠ūlu199 (“She—if I were to win her—would be the remedy to my malady; yet, a remedy has never been dispensed by her”). Sībawayhi supplies here a pronoun to act as the subject of laysa on the analogy of the construction innahu amatu l-Lāhi d̠āhibatun where the pronominal suffix in innahu allows amatu to be a mubtadaʾ and not

196 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 6. Mubarrad himself describes an as the most solid or firmly established (amkan) of the particles that govern the subjunctive. Ḫ alīl’s view is also cited in Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 328 and Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Kāfiya II, 240. 197 Cf. Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VII, 15; Murādī, Ğanā 217; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ II, 2. 198 See, for example, Weil’s (1913) introduction to his edition of Ibn al-Anbārī’s Inṣāf 26. 199 Kitāb I, 147; cf. I, 71.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

81

the noun of inna which is normally in the accusative. By supplying this pronoun (whose tamt̠īl is wa-laysa huwa or wa-laysa l-amru), Sībawayhi avoids rejecting the usage on the grounds of its violation of the universal rule which stipulates that the predicate of laysa should be in the accusative (hence mabd̠ūlā). In fact, his observation that this line and other similar constructions were heard from the Arabs (hād̠ā kulluhu sumiʿa min al-ʿArab) dispels any doubt as to their authenticity and acceptability. A similar case is that of the construction marartu bi-qawmin ʿArabin ağmaʿūna which Sībawayhi could have dismissed due to the discrepancy between the adjective and the noun it modifies as one would expect ağmaʿīna in the genitive. Here also the apparent discrepancy is resolved through taqdīr since the alleged intention of the speaker to suppress the independent pronoun hum before ağmaʿūna explains the nominative.200 As on numerous other occasions in the Kitāb, Sībawayhi’s analysis of these two constructions demonstrates his eagerness to interpret his data in a manner which brings them in line with qiyās or the established norms of usage. His reference to the niyya of the speaker, and hence to iḍmār, allows him to affirm in the first example that the predicate of laysa cannot be in the nominative, and in the second example that the grammatical position (maḥ all) of the adjective (i.e. ağmaʿūna) cannot differ from that of the noun it modifies. Unlike the later grammarians, he achieves his purpose without neglecting the meaning of the construction at hand, irrespective of whether the elided elements are operants—such as li-, bi-, and an—or other elements—e.g. the assumed pronouns after laysa or before ağmaʿūna—which he introduces as part of the process of tamt̠īl, but which are virtually used to explain certain syntactical relationships in the construction. Within the wider framework of his grammatical system, taqdīr ultimately serves one of Sībawayhi’s far-reaching aims, namely, to demonstrate that linguistic phenomena are not haphazard and that they conceal an underlying harmony which grammatical analysis can disclose. From this perspective, taqdīr and ʿilla are quite similar in that both go beyond the face value of the utterance, so to speak, to probe either its underlying structure, in the case of taqdīr, or the underlying reasons for the phenomena which it embraces, in the case of ʿilla. In 200 Ibid., II, 31. Note that Sībawayhi seems to consider ağmaʿūna in this construction to be an adjective (ṣifa) as the title of the chapter indicates. This is either meant literally or is a general sense of ṣifa as modifier since ağmaʿ and its derivatives are usually considered to be corroborative words (tawkīd) and not adjectives.

82

chapter two

both, Ḫ alīl’s simile of the wise man who attributes ḥikma to the builder201 offers a reasonable explanation to Sībawayhi’s interest in discovering the intention of the speaker and consequently justifying usage and seeking reasons which explain it. Sībawayhi’s use of taqdīr reveals that he consistently looks for what we can call “harmony” in the utterances which he analyzes. Although no term in the Kitāb directly expresses “harmony”, the concept itself is strongly present in a large number of its passages. In general, there are two distinct strategies which Sībawayhi adopts in this respect.202 The first of these consists of breaking up one sentence into two parts which share a common feature. This can best be exemplified by his restoration of a verb which accounts for the accusative and at the same time matches another verb which governs the accusative in another noun within the same construction. The following examples show the type of change which taqdīr introduces to the original sentences, each of which is transformed into two harmonious sentences: Zaydan ḍarabtuhu → *ḍarabtu Zaydan| ḍarabtuhu Zaydan laqītu aḫ āhu → *lābastu Zaydan | laqītu aḫ āhu a-ʿAbdallāhi ḍarabtahu → *a-ḍarabta ʿAbdallāhi | ḍarabtahu a-ʿAbdullāhi ḍaraba aḫūhu Zaydan → *a-ḍaraba ʿAbdullāhi | ḍaraba aḫūhu Zaydan 5. man amata l-Lāhi ḍarabahā → *man ḍaraba amata l-Lāhi | ḍarabahā 6. kulla rağulin yaʾtīka fa-ḍrib → *iḍrib kulla rağulin yaʾtīka | fa-ḍrib203

1. 2. 3. 4.

The second strategy is applied to constructions which are originally made up of two conjoined sentences, one of which is verbal and the other nominal. These are also subject to taqdīr and are consequently interpreted as two harmonious sentences both of which are verbal, as in: 1. raʾaytu Zaydan wa-ʿAmran kallamtuhu → *raʾaytu Zaydan | wa-kallamtu ʿAmran kallamtuhu 201

See above, 67. For a detailed discussion of these strategies, see Baalbaki (1979: 8–14). The examples cited above largely correspond to those examined in that article. 203 Kitāb I, 81, 83, 101, 102–103, 127, 136 respectively. 202

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

83

2. aẓunnu ʿAmran munṭaliqan wa-Bakran aẓunnuhu ḫ āriğan → *aẓunnu ʿAmran munṭaliqan | wa-aẓunnu Bakran | aẓunnuhu ḫ āriğan204 The restoration of the verb in the second sentence of each of the two constructions reveals the inherent symmetry between the uttered verbs and the assumed ones as well as the uniformity of their regimen irrespective of their actual occurrence in speech. It is obvious here that the presumed construction, which includes a second verb, is a virtual representation of the actual or literal utterance in as much as it faithfully reflects the speaker’s intention to use that verb and cause the noun after it to be in the accusative. In explaining the first of these two constructions, Sībawayhi defends the restoration of kallamtu in the second sentence on the grounds of the parallelism existing between the two constituent sentences of the construction since the first one starts with a verb. His assertion that it is more appropriate (aqrab ilā l-maʾḫ ad̠ ) that the utterance (kalām) be constructed after one model (ʿalā wağh wāḥ id)—i.e. to be made up of two symmetrical verbal sentences—is a clear expression of his belief in the underlying harmony of apparently inharmonious constructions. It may be suggested, based on Sībawayhi’s approach to taqdīr, that for him the actual or literal utterance is an “imperfect” version of an “ideal” utterance, and that the grammarian should always aim at revealing the characteristics which are embedded in the former in order to appreciate the symmetry and harmony which the latter embodies. Accordingly, taqdīr is supposed to present an underlying version of the utterance which accounts for the syntactic relations of its constituents and which at the same time is fully representative of the elements that contribute to its meaning as intended by the speaker. 6. ʿAmal (Government) It would be quite difficult to think of any concept whose impact on the overall Arab grammatical theory is greater than that of ʿamal. It would also be equally difficult to find a concept which matches ʿamal if one wanted to demonstrate Sībawayhi’s influence on subsequent

204

Ibid., I, 88, 119 respectively.

84

chapter two

grammarians. Among the various perspectives from which ʿamal in the Kitāb may be examined, the one which is closest to the study of the legacy of the Kitāb, and hence most appropriate for this section, is the influence which Sībawayhi’s theory of syntactical relationships has had on the tradition as a whole. We shall therefore try to establish that the various elements which constitute the theory of ʿamal in the tradition are mostly derived from the analytical views of Sībawayhi and his approach to syntactical analysis in which the concept of ʿamal is undeniably the most dominant factor. The term ʿamal is translated by a variety of terms, including government, governance, regimen, rection, operation and dependency.205 What causes ʿamal, that is the ʿāmil, is also translated by a number of corresponding terms such as operant, operative, operating element, governor and governing operator, whereas the governed element or maʿmūl is usually referred to as operand. The English terms should not be taken as exact equivalents of the Arabic ones, but may be used to convey the general meaning of ʿamal and related terms as long as the peculiarities of the various grammatical traditions are not forgotten. The concept of ʿamal was not alien to pre-Sībawayhi grammarians, but it is less clear whether those grammarians, besides Sībawayhi’s immediate teachers Ḫ alīl and Yūnus, systematically referred to it in their syntactical analysis or whether they linked it to other syntactical tools as Sībawayhi did. As pointed out earlier,206 authors of the biographical sources identify ʿamal as one of those areas on which early grammatical activity centered. The earliest of these authors, Ibn Sallām (d. 232/846), specifically mentions, as the first grammatical topics which Abū l-Aswad (d. 69/688) introduced, the subject of a verb, the direct object, the construct/genitive, and the particles which govern the nominative/ indicative, the accusative/subjunctive, the genitive and the jussive (bāb al-fāʿil wa-l-maf ʿūl bihi wa-l-muḍāf wa-ḥurūf al-raf ʿ wa-l-naṣb wa-l-ğarr wa-l-ğazm).207 Obviously, these topics are closely related to the concept of ʿamal and consequently to laḥ n (solecism) since much of the data on

205 The term dependency is deliberately chosen by Owens (1988: 38 ff. and 2000: 291) in line with his belief that there are “fundamental formal identities between the Arabic notion of ʿamal and the modern western idea of dependency”. See also Guillaume (2001: 591–605) for various issues related to the translation of Arabic grammatical technical terms, including ʿamal. 206 Cf. the examples cited above, 3. 207 Ibn Sallām, Ṭabaqāt I, 12.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

85

early linguistic errors has to do with case-endings and their relationship to the operants that cause them. Such reports on the earliest grammatical topics are more likely to have been anachronistically formulated by authors from the third century onward than genuinely reported on the authority of first century figures. But irrespective of their authenticity or otherwise, these reports do not suggest the existence at that early stage of a systematic approach to ʿamal equivalent to that which can be discerned in the Kitāb. It is therefore probably safe to conclude, as with other tools and concepts, that Sībawayhi was the first grammarian to systematically apply ʿamal to syntactical analysis as part of an analytical system which operates according to clearly identifiable rules. As his quotations from Yūnus and particularly Ḫ alīl indicate, he must have drawn upon their ideas to formulate and uniformly apply the elements which make up a full-fledged theory of ʿamal. As for the ascription to Ḫ alīl of a book entitled al-ʿAwāmil, it is in all likelihood, as Qiftị̄ notes,208 incorrect and incompatible with what we know about the development of grammatical writings, but it cannot be denied that Sībawayhi’s numerous references to his teacher on matters related to ʿamal do argue for the presence of the main elements of the theory of ʿamal in Ḫ alīl’s grammatical teaching. Like many of Sībawayhi’s terms, ʿāmil is used in a general as well as technical sense.209 This shows that the technical use of the term had not yet fully replaced its more general use and suggests that Sībawayhi must have subjected the latter to a process of abstraction which contributed to the emergence of the purely technical sense as we know it in the later works. The general sense of the term is encountered in several passages. For example, in expressions like wa-ʿamila l-fiʿl fī l-qaryati kamā kāna ʿāmilan fī l-ahli, wa-in šiʾta awṣalta ilayhi yuṣawwitu fa-ğaʿaltahu l-ʿāmil fīhi, and wa-ʿamila fīhi mā kāna ʿāmilan fīhi,210 the terms ʿāmil and ʿamila fī refer to the general sense of “effect/to affect” and can theoretically be replaced by other words which can convey that meaning.211 Similarly, the plural ʿawāmil in expressions like inna wa-kāna ʿawāmil fīmā baʿdahunna and fa-min tilka l-ḥ urūf al-ḥ urūf al-ʿawāmil fī l-af ʿāl 212 208 Qifṭī, Inbāh I, 381: kitāb fī l-ʿawāmil manḥ ūl ʿalayhi. The book is ascribed to Ḫ alīl in Ibn Ḫ illikān, Wafayāt II, 246. 209 See above, 33. 210 Kitāb I, 212, 356–357; II, 22 respectively. See other examples in I, 56, 73, 127, 147, 159, 181, 202, 237, 265, 406; II, 52, 61, 124, 274–275, 310, 315, 331; III, 129. 211 E.g. (our) muʾat̠ti̠ r/at̠ta̠ ra fī or muḥ dit̠/aḥ dat̠a fī, etc. 212 Kitāb III, 74, 110; cf. III, 111.

86

chapter two

has the sense of “producer of an effect”213—and can thus be theoretically replaced by other words which express the same idea—and does not connote the abstraction which it connotes, for example, in the common title of some later works, Kitāb al-ʿawāmil, or in the expressions ʿawāmil al-naṣb, ʿawāmil al-ğazm, etc. which are used by later authors. The mere frequency of the occurrence of the root ʿml in syntactical contents in the Kitāb—e.g. ʿamila fī (272 times), ʿamal (58 times), ʿāmil/ʿawāmil (54 times), aʿmala/uʿmila (56 times), iʿmāl (14 times) and muʿmal (8 times)214—shows the importance which Sībawayhi attaches to the concept of ʿamal in his syntactical analysis. More important, however, is the fact that this concept appears in the very first few lines of the Kitāb, that is, where Sībawayhi introduces the most fundamental axioms of his grammatical theory. The first and most essential of these axioms are two: the parts of speech and the difference between the changeable endings of declinable nouns and most forms of the imperfect verb215 (corresponding to raf ʿ, naṣb, ğarr and ğazm) on the one hand, and the unchangeable endings of indeclinable nouns, verbs other than the imperfect, and particles (corresponding to ḍamm, fatḥ , kasr and waqf ) on the other. Although Sībawayhi generally observes this terminological distinction throughout the Kitāb, he occasionally fails to do so. According to Talmon, there are fourteen cases in which he employs iʿrāb-specific terms for either “internal” vowels or non-iʿrābī vowels.216 As has been noted earlier,217 Sībawayhi’s systematization of the declensional scheme is one of his major achievements, but more significant here is the linkage between the two sets of terms and the ʿāmil concerned. Sībawayhi explains that the elements of the first set (i.e. raf ʿ, naṣb, etc.) are caused by a ʿāmil in a particular construction; that is, none of these elements represents a permanent state since the ʿāmil may be removed in another construction (wa-laysa šayʾ minhā

213

Cf. the expression which immediately follows the above quotation (III, 75): wa-lḥ urūf fī hād̠ā l-bāb lā yuḥ dit̠na fīmā baʿdahunna min al-asmāʾ šayʾan kamā aḥ dat̠at inna wa-kāna wa-ašbāhuhumā, where yaʿmalna and ʿamilat could have occurred instead of yuḥ dit̠na and aḥ dat̠at. 214 Troupeau (1976: ʿML). 215 Note that imperfect verbs are considered to be mabnī and not muʿrab when the feminine plural pronoun or the energetic nūn is suffixed to them, as in yaf ʿalna and yaf ʿalan(na). 216 Talmon (2003: 242–243). Talmon also notes that there are no references “to iʿrāb position by the non-iʿrābī terminological set (ḍamm, fatḥ , etc.)”. 217 See above, 32.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

87

illā wa-huwa yazūl ʿanhu).218 In contrast, elements of the second set (i.e. ḍamm, fatḥ , etc.) are not accidental since they are not caused by any of the various ʿawāmil. From this relationship between ʿāmil and parts of speech branch many rules which are essential to the general theory, and Sībawayhi was certainly aware of the importance of highlighting this relationship at the very beginning of his opus. In fact, the whole theory of declinability versus indeclinability of nouns, verbs and particles (i.e. iʿrāb and bināʾ) is based on the effect or lack thereof of the ʿāmil, since some words experience a temporary change (yazūl ʿanhu) in their case-endings due to the influence of a ʿāmil, whereas other words have permanent final vowels or sukūn which no ʿāmil can change (lā yazūl ʿanhu). Although the post-Sībawayhi grammarians have formally classified the ʿawāmil, written books that are fully devoted to them, and introduced terms which relate to them and are not found in the Kitāb (e.g. nawāsiḫ , ğawāzim, nawāṣib, ʿawāmil al-asmāʾ and ʿawāmil al-af ʿāl ),219 their mainstream theory of ʿamal is derived almost in its entirety from the Kitāb. To appreciate the far-reaching influence of Sībawayhi on the whole tradition in this respect, we shall try to demonstrate how the basic elements of the theory of ʿamal in the grammatical tradition are embedded in Sībawayhi’s syntactical analysis of structure. We shall therefore discuss some of the most essential features which characterize Sībawayhi’s approach to ʿamal and which were adopted almost unanimously220 by subsequent authors:221

218

Kitāb I, 13. Note that Sībawayhi does use the terms nāṣib and ğāzim but not in the plural, and that he uses ʿawāmil in the plural but does not refer to ʿawāmil al-asmāʾ or ʿawāmil al-af ʿāl. As for the root nsḫ , it does not occur in the Kitāb. 220 The statement that unanimity was almost fully achieved on matters related to ʿamal is due to the fact that, very sporadically, authors do not conform to the widely accepted views of the grammarians. The clearest example in this respect is the attempt of Ibn Maḍāʾ (d. 592/1196) to prove in his al-Radd ʿalā l-nuḥ āt the invalidity of the very premises on which ʿamal in the grammatical tradition rests and hence to abolish it altogether. Furthermore, there are authors—such as Suhaylī (d. 581/1185), for whom see below, 290—who have significantly modified certain aspects of the main stream theory of ʿamal but fell short of rejecting its main components. 221 For a broad discussion of the theory of ʿamal in the Arabic grammatical tradition, see Levin (1995: 214–232 and 2000: 256); Bohas et al. (1990: 57–72); Owens (1988: 38–56). 219

88

chapter two

1. Many of the axioms of the theory of ʿamal in the grammatical tradition are derived directly from the Kitāb. More frequently than not, they are implicit in Sībawayhi’s syntactical analysis, yet constitute the most essential bases of the theory which were hardly ever contested by the post-Sībawayhi grammarians. Sībawayhi probably felt that these axioms are too obvious and too inherently assumed in his discussions to warrant specific mention. Foremost among these axioms are: a. that every maʿmūl must have a ʿāmil to explain its case inflection, that is, no ʿamal occurs in the case of lack of a ʿāmil; b. that ʿamal cannot be ascribed to more than one ʿāmil;222 c. that one ʿāmil can govern more than one maʿmūl, as in the case of doubly or triply transitive verbs, or with inna and kāna which govern both a subject and a predicate; d. that the alleged omission or suppression of a ʿāmil does not disqualify it from ʿamal—a principle which is essential for the taqdīr of ʿawāmil or their restoration in the tamt̠īl (representation) which the grammarian resorts to in order to explain certain syntactical relationships; e. that a ʿāmil which is deferred (muʾaḫḫar) in relation to its ordinary position in the structure normally retains its ʿamal, as in Zaydan raʾaytu,223 where the deferred verb governs its fronted (muqaddam) object;224 f. that a ʿāmil which governs a word may itself be a maʿmūl which is governed by another word, as in (our example) ğāʾa l-masrūqu māluhu, where masrūq is maʿmūl in relation to gāʾa and ʿāmil in relation to māluhu; and g. that a ʿāmil cannot normally govern a maʿmūl if they both belong to same part of speech.225

222 In contradiction of this axiom, Farrāʾ is reported to have allowed the ascription of ʿamal to two operants in the case of tanāzuʿ (conflict in government), as in qāma wa-qaʿada Zaydun, where both verbs, according to him, cause the subject Zaydun to be in the nominative; see Ušmūnī, Šarḥ I, 204; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ II, 109. 223 Kitāb I, 120. 224 For the annulment of deferred operants with mental verbs, see below, 95. 225 Hence particles do not govern particles and verbs do not govern verbs. In the case of nouns, an exception is noted in the construct/genitive relationship since the latter may be governed by a noun; e.g. hād̠ā ḥ imāru Zaydin and hād̠ā ašaddu l-nāsi (Kitāb I, 419–420).

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

89

2. The widely held distinction between ʿawāmil that are lafẓī (formal, expressed) and those that are maʿnawī (abstract) is most probably derived from the Kitāb. The lafẓī ʿawāmil are those that are actually uttered or proposed by the grammarians in the process of taqdīr in order to account for certain syntactical relationships in the utterance. The various parts of speech to which these ʿawāmil belong, according to post-Sībawayhi grammarians, invariably feature in the Kitāb as ʿawāmil. These are verbs,226 particles227 and nouns.228 Specific types of nouns which the theory only recognizes as subdivisions but not as separate parts of speech are also assigned as ʿawāmil by Sībawayhi and consequently by other grammarians. These include: a. ism fāʿil (active participle), as in hād̠ā ḍāribun Zaydan ġadan;229 b. ṣifa mušabbaha (assimilate adjective), since this is said to be assimilated to ism fāʿil (cf. al-ḥ asanu l-wağhi and al-ḍāribu l-rağuli);230 c. ism maf ʿūl (passive participle), as in a-Zaydan anta mukābarun ʿalayhi;231 d. af ʿal al-tafḍīl (comparative af ʿal), as in huwa aḥ sanu minka wağhan;232 e. nisba (gentilic adjective; referred to by Sībawayhi as iḍ āfa), as in a-Qurašiyyun qawmuka;233 f. maṣdar (verbal noun), as in ʿağibtu min ḍarbin Zaydan Bakrun;234

226 See, for example, the chapters on verbs which govern one, two or three direct objects (Kitāb I, 34–43). Verbs that are ʿawāmil are usually declinable although the theory recognizes some indeclinable verbs—such as laysa (ibid., II, 37)—as ʿawāmil. Also note that af ʿala in admirative constructions of the type mā aḥ sana ʿAbdallāhi is said to be an operant in spite of the fact that it is, according to Sībawayhi, an indeclinable verb (ibid., I, 72–73). Contrary to Sībawayhi and the Basrans, most Kufan grammarians are said to have considered admirative af ʿal to be a noun (Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf 126–148). 227 E.g. particles which govern the genitive (I, 419), the subjunctive (III, 5) and the jussive (III, 8). 228 E.g. the mubtadaʾ or subject of a nominal sentence is said to govern its predicate (II, 127). 229 Kitāb I, 164. Note that participles which express mubālaġa (intensiveness) are also included in this category; e.g. hād̠ā ḍāribun sūqa l-ibili (I, 110). 230 Ibid., I, 201; see also I, 194 for the title of the chapter. 231 Ibid., I, 109. The operand in this example is the elided subject ( fāʿil) which mukābarun takes, as this is equivalent to the elided subject of the corresponding passive verb, yukābaru; cf. Sībawayhi’s statement fa-maf ʿūl mit̠l yuf ʿal wa-fāʿil mit̠l yaf ʿal. 232 Ibid., I, 202. 233 Ibid., II, 36. 234 Ibid., I, 189.

90

chapter two g. ism fiʿl (lit. proper name of the verb), as in ruwayda Zaydan and ḥ ayyahala l-t̠arīda;235 and h. ʿadad (number), as in ʿišrīna dirhaman which Sībawayhi likens to ḍāribīna ʿAbdallāhi.236

As far as maʿnawī or abstract ʿawāmil are concerned, there is broad agreement among the grammarians that those are restricted to two cases, namely, the ʿāmil which causes the mubtadaʾ (i.e. subject of a nominal sentence) to be in the nominative, and that which causes the imperfect to be in the indicative. A clear statement to this effect is, for example, that of Ibn al-Anbārī’s (d. 577/1181) who says wa-ammā l-maʿnawiyy fa-lam yaʾti illā fī mawḍiʿayni ʿinda Sībawayhi wa-akt̠ar al-Baṣriyyīna hād̠ā aḥ aduhumā wa-huwa l-ibtidaʾ wa-l-t̠ānī wuqūʿ al-fiʿl al-muḍāriʿ mawqiʿ al-asmāʾ.237 This unanimity is sporadically breached as individual grammarians at times propose maʿnawī ʿawāmil in lieu of the lafẓī ones which are generally acknowledged. These include, according to Suyūtị̄ 238 (d. 911/1505), the ʿāmil which causes the subjunctive after wāw, fāʾ and wāw, as in lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī (proposed by Farrāʾ [d. 207/822] and other Kufans); that which causes the subject of a verb to be in the nominative (proposed by some Kufans, Ḫ alaf al-Aḥmar [d. 180/796] and Hišām b. Muʿāwiya [d. 209/824]); that which causes the direct object to be in the accusative (proposed by Ḫ alaf as well); and that which causes words in apposition to have the same case-endings as the words which they modify (proposed by Aḫfaš [d. 215/830]). These four maʿnawī ʿawāmil, contrary to the two universally accepted ʿawāmil which govern the subject of the nominal sentence and the indicative verb, are at best marginal and individual opinions which have hardly had any effect on the mainstream theory of ʿamal. To be sure, the “canonical” works on ʿawāmil echo the preponderance of the lafẓī ʿawāmil over the maʿnawī ones as is the case of the Kitāb. A striking example is that of Ğurğānī’s (d. 471/1078) al-ʿAwāmil al-miʾa l-naḥwiyya which identifies a hundred ʿawāmil only two of which are maʿnawī, and then these two are the same as those proposed by Sībawayhi and adopted in the whole tradition.239 235 Ibid., I, 241. The term ism fiʿl refers to those words which the grammarians consider as having the meaning of a verb (e.g. command or prohibition) although they are neither verbs nor derived from verbs. 236 Ibid., I, 95; cf. I, 203, 404, 406, 417; II, 87, 118, 131, 157, 310, 319. 237 Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 66. 238 Suyūtị̄ , Ašbāh I, 244–245. 239 Ğurğānī, ʿAwāmil (whose text is incorporated into Azharī’s Šarḥ ), 85–86, 312. It should also be noted that certain grammarians even tried to dismiss the two widely

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

91

Also noteworthy is the insistence of later grammarians that no ʿāmil should be claimed to be maʿnawī unless it is absolutely inconceivable that it be labeled as lafẓī.240 Sībawayhi’s influence on the almost universal acknowledgement of no more than two maʿnawī ʿawāmil cannot be denied. He unequivocally states that the mubtadaʾ is nominative due to ibtidāʾ (topicality; lit. placing at the beginning). He explains that in ʿAbdullāhi munṭaliqun, the mubtadaʾ, ʿAbdullāhi, takes the nominative because the predicate is “dependent” upon it syntactically (yubnā ʿalayhi l-munṭaliqu; lit. constructed upon it).241 Similarly, Sībawayhi assigns no lafẓī agent which causes the imperfect to be in the indicative, but ascribes the indicative to the syntactical similarity between the imperfect and inflected nouns. He elaborates on this by specifying that the imperfect can occur in the syntactical position (mawḍiʿ ) of a mubtadaʾ, as in yaqūlu Zaydun d̠āka, or in that of what is “dependent” upon the mubtadaʾ, as in Zaydun yaqūlu d̠āka, or in other positions which a noun can occupy, as in marartu bi-rağulin yaqūlu d̠āka, where the verb occurs in the position of an adjective (hence a noun) assumed to be qāʾilin.242 Furthermore, the semantic dimension of the similarity between the imperfect and nouns is also noted by Sībawayhi since he argues that inna ʿAbdallāhi la-yaf ʿalu and inna Zaydan la-fāʿilun are equivalent in meaning (ḥ attā kaʾannaka qulta . . . fīmā turīd min al-maʿnā) and that the two particles of futurity, sīn and sawfa, can be introduced to the imperfect for a

accepted maʿnawī ʿawāmil and propose alternatives which would bring them into the sphere of lafẓī ʿawāmil. For example, Kisāʾī (d. 189/805) is reported to have ascribed the indicative in the imperfect to ḥ urūf al-muḍāraʿa, that is, the prefixes ʾ, n, y, t (Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 164 and Ašbāh I, 243; cf. Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 28 and Inṣāf II, 551). Concerning the mubtadaʾ, the early Kufan sources (e.g. Farrāʾ, Maʿānī I, 195) as well as the reports of later sources (e.g. Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf I, 44–45; Suyūṭī, Hamʿ I, 94; Zabīdī, Iʾtilāf 30) indicate that the Kufans believe that the predicate causes the subject to be in the nominative and that the subject, in turn, causes the predicate to be in the nominative. This would effectively assign the government to lafẓ and annul the maʿnawī nature of the ʿāmil. 240 It is on the basis of this principle, for example, that Hišām b. Muʿāwiya’s (d. 209/ 824) ascription of the nominative in the subject of a verb to a maʿnawī ʿāmil is dismissed by his adversaries who argue that there are no grounds for his contention since the verb is a readily available uttered ʿāmil to which government can be ascribed; cf. Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 159. 241 Kitāb II, 127; cf. I, 81, 127. 242 Ibid., III, 10. See also masʾala 74 in Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf II, 550 ff. and cf. Ibn al-Warrāq, ʿIlal 265 ff.

92

chapter two

semantic effect just like the definite article can be introduced to the noun for a semantic effect.243 3. The content of most syntactical topics in the Kitāb is largely a function of the theory of ʿamal. Chapters on active and passive verbs, active participles, passive participles, verbal nouns etc., which immediately follow the introductory chapters known as the Risāla, revolve mainly around the syntactic relationship between operants and the nouns they govern. Similarly, nouns that are in the accusative other than the direct object—such as the adverb (ẓarf ), the concomitate object (maf ʿūl maʿahu), the absolute object (what came to be known as maf ʿūl muṭlaq), and the circumstantial accusative (ḥ āl)—are grouped together mainly on the basis of their common feature of being accusatives that are governed by verbs. The effect of inna and kāna and their sisters (aḫ awāt) on the subject or predicate is also the main factor in the grouping of these ʿawāmil and consequently in the study of the nominal sentence. As far as verbs are concerned, the study of the imperfect is to a large extent the study of the subjunctive and the jussive, based on the particles that cause both moods, whereas the indicative which, as mentioned earlier, has an abstract ʿāmil is not discussed in a separate chapter. The structure of the Kitāb has had a large impact on later authors. Although later works do not slavishly follow the arrangement of topics in the Kitāb and often significantly depart from it, the generally accepted division of nouns into marfūʿāt (nominative), manṣūbāt (accusative) and mağrūrāt (genitive) and of verbs into manṣūbāt (subjunctive) and mağzūmāt (jussive) is most probably due to Sībawayhi’s influence on the tradition as a whole. So profound was this influence that the topics which Sībawayhi does not discuss as separate phenomena, but distributes their elements to several places in the Kitāb due to considerations that have to do with ʿamal, are also not normally discussed by post-Sībawayhi grammarians under separate headings. A most telling example is that of negation. Although Sībawayhi at times comes close to discussing negation as a phenomenon in its own right,244 the various

243

Kitāb I, 14; cf. Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf II, 549–550 and Asrār 25–27. See, for example, the chapter in which he discusses the similarity between particles of interrogation (istifhām), command (amr) and prohibition (nahy) on the one 244

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

93

particles or verbs (note that laysa, for example, is classified as a verb) which indicate negation are normally discussed in disparate parts of the Kitāb in accordance with the type of their ʿamal. This approach is generally reflected in later works which usually do not designate a specific chapter which embraces under one heading all the particles and verbs of negation. Hence, it is customary in the sources to discuss (1) lākinna with inna and its sisters; (2) mā zāla, mā bariḥ a, mā fatiʾa, etc. with kāna and its sisters; (3) laysa, mā, in, lā and lāta under one heading, but merely because their ʿamal is said to be weaker than that of kāna and its sisters,245 and not because they indicate negation; (4) generic lā (lā l-tabriʾa, later called lā l-nāfiya li-l-ğins) under a separate heading most probably due to the unique nature of its ʿamal;246 (5) lā yakūnu with exceptive particles; (6) lan with the subjunctive verb; (7) lā, lam and lammā with the jussive verb; and (8) various other particles that are not ʿawāmil, such as lākin and bal, with conjunctions. 4. The link which Sībawayhi establishes between ʿamal and parts of speech was adopted almost without change by subsequent authors. This link has two aspects, the first of which generally mirrors actual usage, whereas the second is introduced for purely theoretical reasons. Sībawayhi elucidates the first link in the very beginning of the Kitāb as a sequel to the terminological distinction which he draws between raf ʿ, naṣb, ğarr and ğazm on the one hand and ḍamm, fatḥ , kasr and waqf on the other, as was explained earlier. This distinction is based on the difference between parts of speech in relation to case inflection. Declinable nouns and most imperfect verbs are associated with the first set and are muʿrab, that is, the final case-endings of the noun and mood endings of the imperfect are a function of the ʿawāmil which happen to govern them in a particular construction. In contrast, indeclinable nouns, verbs other than the imperfect, and particles which indicate meaning (ğāʾa li-maʿnā) are associated with the second set because their bināʾ is inherent and thus not

hand and negative particles on the other (I, 145–150). This chapter, however, is largely restricted to laysa and its sisters mā and lā. 245 The later authors specify in detail the conditions under which laysa and its sisters can be ʿāmil (e.g. Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 137–145; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 123–127) and argue that laysa is weaker (aḍʿaf ) than kāna (Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 140–141) and that the sisters of laysa are weaker than laysa itself (ibid., 145–146). 246 This refers mainly to the fact that lā can only precede indefinite nouns and that its noun is deprived from nunation when it is a single word.

94

chapter two the result of a transient connection with a ʿāmil. This distinction is of course commensurate with actual usage, if one leaves aside the dialectal situation pertaining to iʿrāb and bināʾ.247 But it should be noted that Sībawayhi’s keenness on justifying linguistic phenomena (cf. the previous section on ʿilla) finds its expression here in the comparison which he makes between particles and indeclinable nouns to explain the fact that they both belong to the category of mabnī. It is interesting to note how one statement of Sībawayhi’s, that in which he likens mabnī nouns to particles (wa-ammā l-fatḥ wa-l-kasr wa-l-ḍamm wa-l-waqf fa-li-l-asmāʾ ġayr al-mutamakkina l-muḍāriʿa ʿindahum mā laysa bi-ism wa-lā fiʿl mimmā ğāʾa li-maʿnā laysa ġayr),248 has left such a huge impact on subsequent grammarians who painstakingly elaborate on this alleged similarity and compete in adducing arguments in its favor.249

The second link between ʿamal and the parts of speech was encountered earlier in the discussion on taqdīr.250 Sībawayhi’s key statement in this respect distinguishes between operants which affect nouns and those which affect verbs (mā yaʿmal fī l-af ʿāl fa-yanṣibuhā aw yağzimuhā lā yaʿmal fī l-asmāʾ).251 This is what the later grammarians refer to as iḫtiṣāṣ (specialization) to explain, as Sībawayhi does, why some particles can govern and others cannot, and to identify which particle should be assumed when ʿamal cannot be ascribed to any element of the uttered construction. Other than the principle itself, the post-Sībawayhi grammarians have largely adopted his proposed ʿawāmil, and hence accept, for example, that an elided verb (i.e. unādī or adʿū) causes the vocative to be in the accusative, that an elided rubba causes the noun after wāw to be in the genitive, that an elided an causes the verb to be in the subjunctive in constructions of the type lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī, and that an elided kāna causes the noun (as its predicate) to be in the accusative after ammā anta, as in ammā anta d̠ā nafarin.252 A comprehensive list of such examples would be very lengthy indeed, and although Sībawayhi’s

On the dialectal situation pertaining to iʿrāb and bināʾ, see below, 153 ff. Kitāb I, 15. 249 See, for instance, the various commentaries on Ibn Mālik’s Alfiyya, e.g. Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 31–34; Ibn Hišām, Awḍaḥ I, 30–33; Ušmūnī, Šarḥ I, 20–22. 250 See above, 71. 251 Kitāb III, 10. 252 Ibid., II, 182; I, 106; III, 28; I, 293 respectively. 247 248

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

95

suggestions are sometimes modified or even challenged by certain grammarians, the vast majority of cases testify to his massive influence on the tradition as a whole. 5. No discussion of Sībawayhi’s theory of ʿamal would be complete without mentioning of the possibility of the annulment (ilġāʾ) of government. As mentioned in “1e” above, operants that are deferred normally retain their government, but although this axiom is applicable to most verbs, it does not always apply to doubly transitive verbs which express belief (i.e. mental verbs such as ẓanna). Sībawayhi argues that the more such verbs are deferred in the construction, the weaker the retention of the ʿamal is, and hence it would be better to say Zaydun aḫūka aẓunnu than Zaydan aḫ āka aẓunnu.253 Of course, Sībawayhi abides by attested material which testifies to the fact that deferred ẓanna and other similar verbs lose their ʿamal if they are placed towards or at the end of the construction. Nevertheless, his introduction of the concept of ilġāʾ in such cases demonstrates the flexibility of his theory of ʿamal which can tolerate such a major exception to one of its essential rules in order to accommodate usage. Another example of a similar nature is that of -mā which is suffixed to a variety of what the theory recognizes as nouns, verbs or particles. Examples include rubbamā, qallamā, mimmā, kamā, innamā, annamā, kaʾannamā, ḥayt̠umā, id̠mā, laytamā, laʿallamā, baʿdamā, immā, and ammā anta.254 Without going into any details concerning the syntactical properties of these words,255 it can be noted that one of the aspects of Sībawayhi’s analysis deals with the differences which exist among them in retaining their “original” regimen, i.e. before the suffixation of -mā. Some of them (e.g. inna) lose their regimen—in which case -mā would be called kāffa in later works—whereas others retain it (e.g. min in mimmā). Moreover, some of them optionally retain their regimen (e.g. layta), while others are made to precede verbs instead of nouns (e.g. qalla and rubba;

253

Ibid., I, 119–120. Ibid., III, 115, 156, 518 (rubbamā); III, 115 (qallamā); III, 156 (mimmā); III, 116 (kamā); II, 138, 418; III, 57, 116, 129, 331 (innamā); III, 129, 331 (annamā); II, 138, 418; III, 57, 331 (kaʾannamā); II, 418; III, 56, 331, 518; IV, 221 (ḥ ayt̠umā); III, 56 (id̠mā); II, 137 (laytamā); II, 138 (laʿallamā); I, 116; II, 139; III, 11, 156 (baʿdamā); III, 59, 331 (immā); I, 293 (ammā anta). 255 For a detailed study of Sībawayhi’s interpretation of words ending with -mā, see Baalbaki (1999a: 90–93). 254

96

chapter two

cf. rubba rağulin and rubbamā yaqūlu). The flexibility of the system thus allows, within the general theory of ʿamal, for such distinctions among particles which belong to one group. As far as later grammarians are concerned, it is obvious that Sībawayhi’s discussion of ilġāʾ in the case of ẓanna and suffixed -mā is the ultimate source of their own discussion of that concept as they seem to have adopted his ideas with little alteration.256 6. Sībawayhi had to face constructions in which the grammatical position of a word is not commensurate with its case-ending. This is most manifest in words which are preceded by a preposition yet which the theory interprets as occupying the position (mawḍiʿ ) of the nominative or the accusative rather than the genitive. He cites examples such as lastu bi-d̠āhibin, mā atānī min rağulin and mā raʾaytu min aḥ adin.257 The problem with such constructions is that each of the words which follow the preposition corresponds to a position which is not in the genitive, since the original constructions before the preposition is introduced are lastu d̠āhiban, mā atānī rağulun and mā raʾaytu rağulan. The concept of “basic rule”258 takes precedence in this case. It is, of course, the norm that prepositions cause the genitive, but it is also the norm for the predicate of laysa to be in the accusative, the subject of a verb to be in the nominative, and the direct object to be in the accusative. Although Sībawayhi’s solution affirms the use of the genitive after the preposition in each case, it equally affirms the other phenomenon which each construction involves. Thus, in lastu bi-d̠āhibin, the preposition bi- undeniably causes the genitive, but the equivalence of the preposition and the noun it governs to munṭaliqan precludes the possibility of considering the predicate of laysa to be in the genitive. On one occasion, Sībawayhi cites the construction laysa Zaydun bi-ğabānin wa-lā baḫ īlan259 to demonstrate that bi-ğabānin has the position of the accusative as the noun conjoined to it (baḫīlan) readily testifies. In line with his concern for meaning, Sībawayhi recurrently reminds his

256 For ẓanna, see Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VII, 84–86, where the argument rests, as in the Kitāb, on the analogy between ẓanna and verbs such as ḍarabtu, raʾaytu and abṣartu. As for -mā, its mention in the sources, as in the Kitāb, is scattered over several places as a consequence of the large number of chapters under which the words that it is suffixed to are discussed. 257 Kitāb IV, 225. 258 See below, 134 ff. 259 Ibid., I, 66.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

97

reader that semantically, the redundant or otiose (zāʾid)260 preposition indicates an intensive sense (tawkīd).261 He also invokes the principle of “absence of contradiction in meaning”262 to express his belief that the prefixation of bi- or min, in spite of conveying tawkīd to meaning, does not introduce any element of meaning which contradicts that of the original construction. Sībawayhi’s ingenious interpretation of constructions with bi- or min in such a manner that eliminates divergence from “basic rules” clearly demonstrates how he skillfully manipulates his analytical tools to the advantage of his own strategies. In his analysis of, say, mā atānī min rağulin, only one aspect of ʿamal is preserved, namely, the formal or lafẓī influence of the ʿāmil. The other aspect which has to do with mawḍiʿ is transferred from the sphere of min to that of the atā which requires a subject. Hence, unlike rağulun in mā atānī rağulun, where the nominative satisfies both the lafẓ and mawḍiʿ, rağulin in mā atānī min rağulin satisfies only the lafẓ, whereas the mawḍiʿ is explained with reference to other elements in the construction. The prevalent expression which later authors use to describe nouns that follow redundant prepositions, mağrūr lafẓan marfūʿ/manṣūb maḥ allan (i.e. genitive in form but nominative/accusative in position), is enough by itself to prove Sībawayhi’s influence on subsequent grammarians in the interpretation of this type of ʿamal, not to mention his arguments which are frequently echoed by these authors.263 In light of the above discussion, Sībawayhi’s influence on the whole tradition as far as his theory of ʿamal is concerned cannot be overemphasized. But in spite of that, it is obvious that his approach, which is characterized by a delicate balance between form and meaning and by the active interaction among the various analytical concepts of the system, was largely eroded in the works of the later grammarians. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter IV, but in the case of ʿamal

Sībawayhi refers to bi- as zāʾida in Kitāb I, 41, and this became the standard term for such particles (cf. the common expression ḥ arf ğarr zāʾid). 261 Ibid., II, 26, 175; IV, 225. 262 See above, 78. Cf. also the following statements in the Kitāb: laysa yanquḍ iğrāʾuhu ʿalayka l-maʿnā (I, 67); al-bāʾ daḫ alat ʿalā šayʾ law lam tadḫul ʿalayhi lam yuḫill bi-lmaʿnā (I, 67); al-mawḍiʿ mawḍiʿ naṣb wa-fī maʿnā l-naṣb (I, 92). 263 Cf. Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 144; Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VIII, 13, 23–25; Ibn Hišām, Muġnī I, 106–111, 322–327; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 128 where Sībawayhi’s arguments and šawāhid (attested constructions) occur or direct reference to him is made. 260

98

chapter two

in particular, it should be noted that although Sībawayhi acknowledges no more than two abstract operants, his recognition of the speaker as the ultimate operator argues for the importance of intention (niyya) and hence meaning in ʿamal as a whole. In this respect, most of the later authors stand in sharp contrast to Sībawayhi, given that their analysis largely rests on formal considerations and ignores the speaker and the psychological and social contexts in which speech occurs.264 7. Aṣl (Origin) This section and the one following it (group membership) reflect Sībawayhi’s interest in the organization of linguistic phenomena in a manner which reveals several types of relationships, such as that between what is more frequent or regular and what is less frequent or regular, between what is attested and what the grammarian expects to have been used, and among the various constituents of a group of particles, nouns, etc. which have certain characteristics in common. As far as aṣl is concerned, it is closely associated with terms such as qiyās, wağh, ḥ add,265 ḥ asan, ğayyid, šād̠d̠ and radīʾ, and is thus an extremely useful tool which Sībawayhi employs to describe usage as well as to interpret its development, particularly at the morphological level. Above all, the concept of aṣl provides Sībawayhi with considerable room to analyze, and not merely describe, usage, and to propose a level which transcends what is actually uttered in order to explain various phenomena which would be difficult to account for without the assumption of an original state of affairs which the system recognizes.266 Apart from the phonetic and etymological contexts in which aṣl very rarely occurs, the term is used in the Kitāb as an analytical tool in syntactical and, more importantly, morphological contexts, both of which account for 565 occurrences out of a total of 569.267 Obviously, the term aṣl/uṣūl al-t̠anāyā (i.e. the upper part of the central incisors For the role of the speaker in the Kitāb, and particularly in relation to ʿamal, see below, chapter III, section 5. 265 The relationship between aṣl, wağh and ḥ add will be discussed later; cf. below, 227. 266 For a detailed study of the term aṣl in the Kitāb, see Baalbaki (1988: 163–177; cf. 2006a: 191–195). Parts of this section summarize or expand on the main findings of earlier study, while others (e.g. the relationship between aṣl and poetic license) are the result of more recent investigation. 267 Troupeau (1976: ʾṢL). 264

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

99

as the place of articulation of ṭ, t and d)268 is not related to the methodological notion which the term normally indicates, whereas the expression aʿğamiyy al-aṣl which occurs only once269 refers to “origin” in an etymological sense. In the vast majority of cases, the term may generally be translated as “origin”, “base”, or “principal usage”, but closer study reveals the following specialized, albeit related senses which the term indicates: 1. The form, pattern, case-ending, etc. which agrees with the qiyās, that is, with the norm and also the usage which is most frequently attested in accepted dialects. In nominal sentences, for example, aṣl al-kalām is to begin with the definite noun, as in al-ḥ amdu li-l-Lāhi, al-ʿağabu laka and al-turābu laka.270 Consequently, any conversion of this order is either ungrammatical, as in *rağulun d̠āhibun (with no other specification mentioned), or needs justification, as in salāmun ʿalayka, ḫ ayrun bayna yadayka and waylun laka.271 2. The attested form, pattern, etc. which is assigned as the origin from which a certain usage has developed. For example, lam yakun, lā adrī, ġuziya l-rağulu, naʿimat and banū l-ʿAnbar are said to be the origins of lam yaku, lā adri, ġuzya l-rağulu, niʿmat and bal-ʿAnbar.272 3. The supposed, but not necessarily attested, origin of a certain usage. This sense is naturally more open to speculation than the previous ones. An example of this is the word ašyāʾ whose aṣl, according to Sībawayhi, is the unattested form *šayʾāʾ, which was changed due to the presence of two consecutive hamzas.273 The speculative nature of this proposition is matched by the equally speculative suggestion of other grammarians that *ašyiʾāʾ is the correct aṣl in question.274 There are cases, however, where the supposed aṣl is attested, as in the pattern fīʿāl, the verbal noun of the pattern fāʿala. The norm is that verbs of this third conjugation have their verbal nouns on the pattern mufāʿala (e.g. ǧālasa/muǧālasa and šāraba/mušāraba), and

268

Kitāb IV, 433, 463–465. Ibid., IV, 304. 270 Ibid., I, 328; cf. I, 329: fa-aṣl al-ibtidāʾ li-l-maʿrifa. 271 Ibid., I, 330. 272 Ibid., I, 25 (for the first two examples); IV, 116 (for the third and fourth), 485. 273 Ibid., IV, 380. 274 See Ibn al-Anbārī’s discussion of the difference between the Basrans and Kufans concerning the aṣl of ašyāʾ in Inṣāf II, 812–820; cf. Ibn Ğinnī, Munṣif II, 94–100. 269

100

chapter two

also on the pattern fiʿāl (e.g. qātala/qitāl ).275 But in the latter case, the morphophonological rules stipulate that the long ā of the verb be preserved in the verbal noun; hence one would theoretically expect fīʿāl which is said to be the aṣl of the much more frequent fiʿāl (qītāl > qitāl ) and is indeed attested in some dialects. 4. The form, pattern, etc. characteristic of a certain linguistic function. Thus, the aṣl in the plural of paucity (i.e. from three to ten) of the pattern faʿl is af ʿul as in kalb/aklub and farḫ /afruḫ . If, therefore, the pattern af ʿāl replaces af ʿul in such plural forms (e.g. aǧdād instead of *aǧdud < aǧudd as plural of ǧadd), it is said to be contrary to aṣl since it does not characteristically serve the function of the plural of words of the pattern faʿl.276 5. One of the radicals which form the root of a word. Triliterals, for example, are described as having the least number of uṣūl or radicals (aqall al-uṣūl ʿadadan).277 In this respect, the term at times comes close to expressing the idea of a whole root (not only one of its radicals) in contrast to any ziyāda (augment) that can be introduced to it. Thus, the diminutive of muqʿansis (drawing back), i.e. quʿays, is said to be compatible with the root of the word since this is assumed to be triliteral (aṣluhu l-t̠alāt̠a, i.e. qʿs),278 in which case the nūn of muqʿansis is not part of the word. Similarly, ǧulūs and d̠ahāb include long vowels which do not belong to the aṣl, hence a ziyāda which does not correspond to the roots ğls and d̠hb.279 All of the above five senses of aṣl are encountered in the grammatical sources after Sībawayhi. In fact, the use of the term in the major work after the Kitāb, Mubarrad’s (d. 285/898) Muqtaḍab, confirms the early adoption by the grammarians of the broad range of meanings of the term as used by Sībawayhi. Later works also follow suit in this respect. The following list—which is modeled on the one above and includes under each item an example from Mubarrad and from a post-Sībawayhi author—demonstrates how Sībawayhi’s use of the term is faithfully preserved by subsequent authors:

275 276 277 278 279

Kitāb IV, 80. Ibid., III, 567–568. Ibid., IV, 421. Ibid., III, 476. Ibid., IV, 45. See also Troupeau (1984: 239–246, esp. 241).

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

101

1. What agrees with the qiyās: a. Mubarrad: He argues that the nunation of nouns is aṣl, and one should not seek reasons why a certain noun is nunated; rather one should look for reasons to explain why certain nouns are not nunated and are thus contrary to the norm.280 b. Alfiyya commentators: Ibn Mālik (d. 672/1274) briefly formulates the assumption that aṣl in indeclinable nouns (mabnī) is to end with sukūn in his famous hemistich wa-l-aṣlu fī l-mabniyyi an yusakkanā. Commentators on the text of the Alfiyya explain aṣl here by saying that the norm in indeclinable nouns is to end with what is lighter (aḫaff ) than a vowel, hence a sukūn, and this explains why particles, verbs and nouns that are mabnī normally end with sukūn (e.g. kam, iḍrib and ağal) and why a noun like amsi and a particle like inna, both of which are mabnī, are considered to be contrary to the aṣl since they end with a vowel.281 2. The origin from which a certain usage has developed: a. Mubarrad: lam yakun, lā adrī, banū l-ʿAnbar and banū l-Huğaym are assigned as the origins from which lam yaku, lā adri, bal-ʿAnbar and bal-Huğaym have developed.282 b. Ibn al-Anbārī (d. 577/1181): niʿma which indicates praise is classified as a verb because its aṣl is thought to be naʿima, obviously an attested verbal pattern.283 3. The supposed, but not necessarily attested origin: a. Mubarrad: Other than *šayʾāʾ which he, like Sībawayhi, says is the aṣl of ašyāʾ,284 he postulates *dinnār and *qirrāṭ as the aṣl of dīnār and qīrāṭ.285 b. Māzinī (d. 249/863) and Ibn ʿUṣfūr (d. 669/1271): Both authors propose *layisa, a verbal pattern, as the aṣl of laysa in order to prove that the latter is a verb.286 4. That which is characteristic of a certain linguistic pattern: a. Mubarrad: The pattern af ʿāl is described as the aṣl in the plural forms of the sound faʿal pattern. In other words, af ʿāl is the pattern which most characteristically serves the function of plural of such words (hence it is the bāb), as in ğamal/ağmāl and ṣanam/aṣnām.287

280 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 309; cf. III, 171 where diptotes are said to revert to their aṣl when they receive the genitive marker (if they are definite by prefixation of al- or by annexion to another noun, i.e. iḍāfa) since all nouns are theoretically fully declinable (munṣarif ). 281 Ibn al-Nāẓim, Šarḥ 32–33; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 36; Ibn Hišām, Awḍaḥ I, 38; Ušmūnī, Šarḥ I, 25. 282 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab I, 251; III, 167. 283 Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 102; cf. also masʾala 14 of Ibn al-Anbārī’s Inṣāf I, 97 ff. 284 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab I, 30. 285 Ibid., I, 246. 286 Mazīnī, Taṣrīf I, 258; Ibn ʿUṣfūr, Mumtiʿ II, 440. 287 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 199–200.

102

chapter two b. Ibn al-Sarrāğ (d. 316/929): In explaining the expression riğālun rabaʿātun (men of medium height) in which the feminine adjective is used with the masculine, he says that the singular rabaʿa may be used with both genders, but the aṣl is that it is feminine, that is, it most characteristically represents the feminine because of its feminine ending.288 5. Root or radical: a. Mubarrad: In justifying the impermissibility of forming the pattern mā af ʿalahu from quadriliterals, he says that if this were to be allowed, the aṣl (here root) would have to lose one of its uṣūl (here radicals).289 b. Ibn Ğinnī (d. 392/1002): The nūn of narğis is said not to belong to the word’s aṣl (here root),290 and the mīm of maʿadd is said to be an aṣl (here radical and not an augment).291

The various meanings which Sībawayhi establishes for aṣl strongly point in the direction of his utilizing the concept both to assess the data from the perspective of its agreement, or lack thereof, with the norm and to determine the elements of linguistic change that are involved in each case. As far as the first of these two objectives is concerned, the study of aṣl is firmly linked to qiyās as a decisive factor of the norms which govern linguistic phenomena. Indeed, there are numerous examples in the Kitāb in which the two terms aṣl and qiyās are used side by side apparently without difference in signification. For example, Sībawayhi refers in two consecutive chapters to the hamza of the fourth form af ʿala. In the first, he reports Ḫ alīl’s view that its retention in the imperfect, as in *yuʾaf ʿilu and *yuʾaf ʿalu (for yuf ʿilu and yuf ʿalu), is the qiyās, whereas in the second he describes its retention as the aṣl.292 He also describes hullāk and hālikūna, plurals of hālik, as the aṣl or the qiyās for the pattern fāʿil.293 Conversely, a form may be described as being contrary to both aṣl and qiyās. For example, the passive participle form ṭalīḥ (rendered lean, said of a she-camel) is claimed not to be the qiyās because it has an active rather than a passive sense, and the semantic

288

Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Uṣūl III, 13. Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab IV, 180. 290 Ibn Ğinnī, Munṣif I, 104. 291 Ibid., I, 108. Note that Ibn Ğinnī at times uses the two senses in the same context, as in ibid., I, 11 where aṣl refers to each radical of the pattern faʿala ( fa-l-fāʾ al-aṣl alawwal wa-l-ʿayn al-aṣl al-t̠ānī wa-l-lām al-aṣl al-t̠ālit̠) as well as to the root as a whole (mā yuzād . . . ʿalā l-aṣl). 292 Kitāb IV, 279, 285. 293 Ibid., III, 648. 289

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

103

analogy drawn between it and ḥ asīr (fatigued by much travel, said of a camel) is claimed not to be the aṣl.294 The relationship between the two terms, however, is not restricted to their use as attributes for linguistic usage; otherwise, only stereotype expressions such as wa-huwa l-aṣl wa-l-qiyās would have been expected. The depth of this relationship can only be appreciated by examining how both concepts are shown to be in agreement or contrast with other concepts. The following list illustrates the intricate relationship between aṣl and qiyās on the one hand and other terms and concepts on the other:295 1. Both are opposed to šād̠d̠ and šawād̠d̠: a. Aṣl: The forms mud̠, ladu and qad ʿalma are said to be šawād̠d̠, and the aṣl is mund̠u, ladun and qad ʿalima respectively.296 b. Qiyās: The forms with imāla (fronting and raising of a long or short fatḥ a) which do not conform to qiyās are described, in a special chapter, as šād̠d̠.297 2. Both are linked to descriptions like ḥ asan, ğayyid, etc.: a. Aṣl: The retention of the long vowel of the pronominal suffix -hū, as in ḍarabahū, in positions where it may be shortened,298 is described as both aṣl and kalām ḥ asan.299 b. Qiyās: The use of kasra with min in the likes of min-i-bnika and min-i-mriʾin is described as the qiyās and the ğayyida300 (i.e. dialect). Note also the occurrence of statements like aqyasuhu wa-ağwaduhu and ağwad wa-aqyas wa-akt̠ar.301 3. Both are contrasted with dialects which are described as radīʾ, qabīḥ , etc.: a. Aṣl: The use of minhim in the dialect of Rabīʿa, instead of the aṣl, minhum, is considered a luġa radīʾa.302 b. Qiyās: The gentilic adjectives Salīmiyy and ʿAmīriyy, contrary to qiyās which requires Salamiyy and ʿAmariyy, are described as qalīl and ḫ abīt̠.303

294

Ibid., III, 650. Cf. Baalbaki (1988: 166–167). 296 Kitāb IV, 405. 297 Ibid., IV, 127. 298 Note that Sībawayhi uses ḥ ad̠f to express vowel reduction or shortening, most probably because the script indicates the omission of the letter in such cases. Cf. Baalbaki (2006b: 46–52) for the effect of the written forms of words on the notion of ḥ ad̠f. 299 Ibid., IV, 189–191. 300 Ibid., IV, 154–155. 301 Ibid., III, 232, 336. 302 Ibid., IV, 196. 303 Ibid., III, 339. 295

104

chapter two 4. Both are associated with forms which have not undergone a perceived change: a. Aṣl: The relation between aṣl and linguistic change will be discussed later in this section. b. Qiyās: Sībawayhi expresses the view that not all frequently used forms are changed from their aṣl since such change is not the qiyās.304 He also attributes to Ḫ alīl the view that gentilic adjectives in which the nouns are not changed are ʿalā l-qiyās.305 5. Both are associated with ḍarūra (poetic license): The relationship between aṣl/qiyās and ḍarūra will be discussed later in this section.

Yet in spite of the close affinity between them and even their synonomy at times, each of the two terms aṣl and qiyās may signify different nuances in the same context in which they occur. The following two examples illustrate this phenomenon: 1. Certain forms or constructions are described as having reverted to the aṣl and the qiyās. This applies to the relative pronoun ayy which is indeclinable under certain circumstances yet regains its original status of declinability in others. With this is compared the construction mā Zaydun illā munṭaliqun which is also described as having reverted to aṣl and qiyās.306 Each of the two terms here is meant to refer to a specific aspect of constructions with mā. By aṣl, Sībawayhi refers to the assumption that Zaydun munṭaliqun is the original construction to which mā was introduced, and that mā in the Ḥ iğazī dialect causes the predicate to be in the accusative, hence mā Zaydun munṭaliqan. When illā is introduced, however, the nominative munṭaliqun reemerges and hence a reversion to aṣl is thought to have occurred.307 On the other hand, qiyās refers to the alleged resemblance between mā and the two particles (i.e. not verbs) ammā and hal, neither of which is a ʿāmil (operant).308 Both nuances, however, contribute to the general argument which Sībawayhi advances in his analysis of the various constructions with

304

Ibid., II, 213. Ibid., IV, 335. 306 Ibid., II, 401. 307 Cf. the expression li-anna aṣlahā ʿindahum an yakūn mā baʿdahā mubtadaʾ (I, 123) and the chapter entitled hād̠ā bāb mā uğriya muğrā [better than mağrā; see also Būlāq’s edition I, 28] laysa fī baʿḍ al-mawāḍiʿ bi-luġat ahl al-Ḥ iğāz t̠umma yaṣīr ilā aṣlihi (I, 57). 308 Ibid., I, 57: lā yuʿmilūnahā fī šayʾ. 305

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

105

mā, and of that particle’s relationship with other particles (i.e. laysa, ammā, hal, etc.). 2. Sībawayhi discusses the Tamīmī usage of amsi and quotes the constructions d̠ahaba amsu bi-mā fīhi and mā raʾaytuhu mud̠ amsu in which amsu is unnunated and ends with a ḍamma. He comments on this by saying that the Tamīmīs have changed the original usage of the word (ʿadalūhu ʿan al-aṣl allad̠ī huwa ʿalayhi fī l-kalām) and that it consequently became diptotic and thus incommensurate with what the qiyās should have been.309 In this context, qiyās refers to the normal case-endings which triptotes exhibit since one would have expected amsun/amsan/amsin for the nominative, accusative and genitive respectively. The aṣl from which the Tamīmī dialect has developed in this case, however, is not the qiyās characteristic of triptotes, but the actual usage of the word by most Arabs, that is, amsi which is both mabnī (indeclinable) and ends with a kasra. In other words, the aṣl of the Tamīmī usage is not in line with what the qiyās of triptotes stipulates. In addition to his use of aṣl as an analytical tool which is closely associated with qiyās, Sībawayhi’s other objective in the use of the term is to explain the various changes which, according to him, occur in forms, patterns and constructions.310 The proposal of an aṣl, which in most cases is not attested in actual speech, allows Sībawayhi to analyze usage from the perspective of linguistic change and to assert a number of conclusions which are essential for the theory as a whole, particularly in morphology. We shall deal here with the issue of aṣl and linguistic change from three different angles: (1) the comparison between the actual form and its supposed origin, (2) the interpretation of forms based on the assumption that aṣl tends to assert itself, and (3) poetic license as a fertile ground for the use of an otherwise unused aṣl:311

309

Ibid., III, 283. Cf. the following expressions in which aṣl is linked to change: ğarā ʿalā l-aṣl wa-salima min al-ḥ ad̠f (II, 240); uğriya ʿalā l-aṣl . . . wa-lam yakun al-taġyīr lāziman (II, 251); li-annahu lam taʾti ʿilla . . . fa-ğarā ʿalā l-aṣl (IV, 190); and ʿalā l-aṣl lā yuhmaz wa-lā yuḥ da̠ f (IV, 416). Note also the terms maʿdūl, muḥ awwal, mubdal and maḥ dūd, all of which describe a change introduced to the aṣl (III, 274–275; IV, 342, 401, 409 respectively). 311 A fourth subject which inherently involves the concept of aṣl is ilḥ āq, and it will be discussed later (see below, 147 ff., 224 ff.). 310

106

chapter two

1. By comparing attested forms to an aṣl, Sībawayhi tries to reinforce one of his basic assumptions, namely, that linguistic phenomena are not haphazard and that grammatical analysis should disclose the reasons behind these phenomena. In a wider context, his discussions throughout the Kitāb of the various types of change to which an utterance is subject—including change from an aṣl—betray the conviction that language is dynamic in nature and that it continuously undergoes a process of change in response to certain needs and influences, such as lightening, vowel harmony, economy of effort, etc.312 Being inherently indicative of linguistic change, the proposal of aṣl to explain usage is an attempt to disclose the various causes that lie behind that change, and although most of the relevant material in the Kitāb in this connection is conjectural, it must be stressed that Sībawayhi does not propose an aṣl to represent a historic stage that was later abandoned. The clearest statement to this effect is probably that of Ibn Ğinnī’s (d. 392/1002). He explains that the grammarians’ proposal of *qawama, *bayaʿa, *aḫwafa, *aqwama, *istaʿwana and *istaqwama as the origins of qāma, bāʿa, aḫ āfa, aqāma, istaʿāna and istaqāma does not mean that these forms represent an earlier stage of the language. What it actually means is that the proposed forms are the ones that were expected to be used had change not taken place.313 In fact, Ibn Ğinnī quotes some of Sībawayhi’s šawāhid in support of this interpretation. Moreover, those cases in which the aṣl is attested rather than reconstructed prove that the theoretical aspects involved in the proposal of an aṣl are supported by actual usage in certain cases. We have pointed out earlier (cf. the third sense of aṣl) the form qītāl which is actually attested and which is taken to be the origin from which the more frequent form qitāl developed. Another example is mut̠ta̠ rid (one who slaughters an animal with a stone or a bone) whose less frequent aṣl, mut̠tarid (of the pattern muftaʿil, root t̠rd), is used and is described by Sībawayhi as good Arabic.314 Once more, Ibn Ğinnī seems to have captured the essence of Sībawayhi’s position and derived a general principle pertaining to it. He argues that the anomalous examples which preserve the aṣl in some cases serve as an indication (manbaha) of the original forms which gave 312 See, for example, several types of these changes in the fifth chapter of the Kitāb’s Risāla (I, 24–25). 313 Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 256–264 and Munṣif I, 190–191. 314 Kitāb IV, 467.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

107

rise to attested ones in a certain class of words. Thus, istaṣwaba (to consider to be right) and istanwaqa (to resemble a she-camel) are of the pattern istaf ʿala and correspond to the aṣl since, unlike most examples (cf. istaqāma, istaʿāda, istaʿāna, etc.), they did not undergo the change peculiar to verbs of the tenth conjugation whose radicals are hollow.315 To further illustrate this phenomenon, following are a few anomalous examples which, according to Sībawayhi and consequently later grammarians, agree with the origin of the usage (ʿalā l-aṣl) because they are not subject to change and are thus in contrast with the generally applicable norms, and particularly in relation with vowel mutation (iʿlāl):316 a. iğtawarū (they were neighbors) and iʿtawanū (they cooperated) as opposed to the norm represented by iqtādū < *iqtawadū (they led) and iʿtādū < *iʿtawadū (they got used to).317 b. maqwada (conducer) and Makwaza (proper noun) as opposed to the norm represented by maqāla < *maqwala (utterance) and mabāʿa < *mabyaʿa (place of sale).318 c. ḍ ayāwin, plural of ḍ aywan (male cat), as opposed to the norm represented by awāʾil < *awāwil (first, pl.) and ʿayāʾil < *ʿayāyil (dependents).319 d. ġat̠ayān (nausea) and mayalān (inclination) as opposed to the norm represented by ʿAlāt < *ʿAlawat(un) (proper name of an idol).320

In addition to citing anomalous examples which retain their aṣl in his view, Sībawayhi normally postulates an aṣl when it is not attested in order to account for a variety of morphological and, to a lesser extent, syntactical changes. The assumed forms, patterns or constructions which Sībawayhi proposes are, of course, conjectural, but it should always be remembered that his target is uniformly to explain actual or attested usage and to illustrate the dynamic nature of linguistic change. His interest in the conjecturally proposed forms is therefore confined

Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 161, 256–257 and Munṣif I, 190–191. Cf. Baalbaki (2005a: 90–91). 317 Kitāb IV, 344; cf. Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 124 and Munṣif I, 260–261, 305–306; Ibn ʿUṣfūr, Mumtiʿ II, 473–474; Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Šāfiya III, 99, 123. 318 Kitāb IV, 350; cf. Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 329, Munṣif I, 295, and Sirr I, 154; II, 590; Ibn ʿUṣfūr, Mumtiʿ II, 488; Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Šāfiya III, 105. 319 Kitāb IV, 369; cf. Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 194, Munṣif II, 43–47, and Sirr II, 735; Muʾaddib, Daqāʾiq 257, 266; Ibn ʿUṣfūr, Mumtiʿ I, 338; II, 506, 608; Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Šāfiya III, 127, 139. 320 Kitāb IV, 15; cf. Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 145–146, Munṣif II, 135–136, and Sirr II, 668; Muʾaddib, Daqāʾiq 256; Ibn ʿUṣfūr, Mumtiʿ II, 491; Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Šāfiya III, 107. 315 316

108

chapter two

to their usefulness in determining the nature of the change involved in each case and hence in understanding the influences which affect speech and trigger change. In very broad terms, change from an aṣl, outside the sphere of syntax, embraces phenomena such as vowel mutation (e.g. *fuyl > fīl and *ḥ uyṭān > ḥ īṭān);321 short vowel elision (e.g. *hanat > hant);322 long vowel reduction (e.g. qītāl [attested] > qitāl);323 long vowel elision in poetry (e.g. wa-l-ʿitābā > wa-l-ʿitāb and faʿalā > faʿal);324 diphthong mutation (e.g. *yawḍiʿu > yaḍaʿu);325 assimilation (e.g. *if ʿalala > if ʿalla and *mustardid > mustaridd);326 and pattern change (e.g. *šayʾāʾ > ašyāʾ).327 As far as syntax is concerned, it has been previously argued that taqdīr (suppletive insertion) and the various terms that are associated with it—such as iḍmār (suppression), ḥ ad̠f (deletion), tamt̠īl (representation, approximation), niyya (intention), etc.—are used in the process of proposing underlying structures which account for syntactic relationships (e.g. government and word order).328 The proposed constructions are often linked to an aṣl from which actual usage developed. For instance, the aṣl of the constructions hal Zaydan raʾayta and hal Zaydun d̠ahaba, which are permissible only in poetry, is said to be hal raʾayta Zaydan and hal d̠ahaba Zaydun since interrogative particles are normally followed by verbs.329 Likewise, Sībawayhi expresses the view that constructions in which the wāw is followed by the genitive, such as wa-baladin, are the result of the elision of rubba which the speaker intends (turīd; yurīdūna), hence wa-rubba baladin.330 Nouns which are in the accusative or the nominative in constructions such as Zaydan and al-hilālu are similarly explained by the assumption of an elided element which is suggested in order to reveal an underlying structure. Hence, ʿalayka Zaydan and hād̠ā l-hilālu331 are meant to explain the actual utterance before change (here omission) occurred.

321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331

Kitāb III, 592, 614. Ibid., III, 363–364. Ibid., IV, 80. Ibid., IV, 208. Ibid., IV, 55. Ibid., IV, 412, 418. Ibid., IV, 380. Cf. above, 68 ff. Ibid., I, 98–99. Ibid., I, 106; II, 163–164; III, 128, 498. Ibid., I, 106.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

109

2. The relationship between an attested usage and its aṣl in morphological contexts is frequently linked to the concept of root, itself expressed by the term aṣl (cf. the fifth sense of the term). Although roots, particularly those which contain weak (muʿtall) radicals, are subject to mutation and omission under certain circumstances, Sībawayhi indirectly defends the concept of root by highlighting examples in which a radical that is often elided resurfaces in specific forms and patterns. In what he calls iḍāfa (i.e. nisba or gentilic adjective), the aṣl is said to be restored to forms like t̠udawiyy, qusawiyy, damawiyy, yadawiyy, abawiyy, aḫ awiyy and ḥ amawiyy since the wāw which is part of the root in each case (i.e. t̠dw, qsw, dmw, etc.) resurfaces.332 By describing the process of the appearance of wāw as radd ilā l-aṣl (restoration of origin), Sībawayhi expresses his conviction that the very concept of root, as proposed by the general morphological theory, is correct and demonstrates the dominance of aṣl which tends to assert itself whenever the morphophonological circumstances are favorable. Similarly, apparently biliteral forms one of whose radicals is thought to be elided (e.g. ʿida, zina, mīzān and mīqāt) regain that radical in the diminutive (cf. wuʿayda and wuzayna) or plural (cf. mawāzīn and mawāqīt).333 Other similar patterns include the dual and the plural of words whose roots contain a weak radical, as in ʿaṣawān, rağawān, kisāwān, ġiṭāwān, iḫwān, sanawāt, etc.334 The dominance of aṣl is also highlighted by Sībawayhi in other examples in which the concept of biliteral, triliteral, etc. roots is involved. This mainly applies to those cases in which forms exhibit a tendency to revert to the aṣl from which they have developed. For example, the adverb ladu, which is said to have originated from ladun (at, by), reverts to the aṣl (radadtahu ilā l-aṣl) when it is suffixed, hence ladunhu and not *laduhu.335 Similarly with vowels, the suffixed pronoun -humu, which is said to be the aṣl of -hum, reappears in non-pausal forms such as kuntumu l-yawma, faʿaltumu l-ḫayra and ʿalayhimu l-mālu.336 Obviously, the concept of radd ilā l-aṣl in such examples lends support to our argument that although Sībawayhi’s assumption of aṣl is largely hypothetical,

332 333 334 335 336

Ibid., III, 346, 358–359. Ibid., III, 449, 458. Ibid., III, 386, 391, 597–598. Ibid., III, 286. Ibid., IV, 194.

110

chapter two

it is founded on actual usage in cases where either anomalous forms (e.g. qītāl and mut̠tarid) or more regular ones (e.g. ladunhu and -humu) do occur in speech. 3. As a genre which is more characterized than either prose or the Qurʾān by the occurrence of unusual forms and constructions, poetry provided Sībawayhi with ample opportunity to establish the link between attested usage and the aṣl from which it supposedly developed. Part of the Kitāb’s Risāla is a chapter which Sībawayhi devotes to poetic license (bāb mā yaḥtamil al-šiʿr).337 This chapter serves as the methodological basis for the acceptance of anomalous usage which is not in line with the norms of prose or ordinary speech. Sībawayhi, in addition to this introductory chapter and to recurring comments throughout the Kitāb about the difference between poetry and prose, devotes a number of chapters to deal with issues related to the unique nature of poetry, such as euphonic elision (tarḫīm) in non-vocative contexts, the use of the independent accusative pronoun iyyā, and the effect of rhyme (qāfiya) on the forms of words.338 The concept of ḍarūra (poetic license) is especially devised to accommodate anomalous forms and constructions which, in poetry, run contrary to the norm. It is frequently linked to the concept of radd ilā l-aṣl, probably due to the assumption that poetry preserves forms that are more primitive than their counterparts in prose. Within this general framework, Sībawayhi utilizes aṣl to confirm the legitimacy of ḍarūra and consequently assert both his acceptance of the attested anomalies and the ability of his system of analysis to deal with them as part of the corpus. To illustrate the link between aṣl/qiyās and ḍarūra in Sībawayhi’s morphological and morphosyntactical analysis, the following examples may be considered: a. The first occurrence of aṣl to explain irregular usage in poetry occurs in the introductory chapter on šiʿr in the Kitāb’s Risāla, and more specifically in relation to muʿtall (here words with geminate or final weak radicals). Sībawayhi succinctly formulates the issue at hand by saying that the aṣl of such words may be attained in poetry (wa-qad yabluġūna bi-l-muʿtall al-aṣl).339 Hence, rāddun, 337 Ibid., I, 26–32. Cf. Baalbaki (forthcoming b) for the relationship between poetic license and aṣl. 338 Ibid., II, 269–272, 362; IV, 204–216; cf. above, 43. 339 Ibid., I, 29; cf. III, 313–315, 535.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

111

ḍannū and ğawārin which are the regular forms used in prose can be used in their original forms, rādidun, ḍaninū and ğawāriya, in poetic license. Obviously, Sībawayhi’s interpretation does not only safeguard against the rejection of these irregular forms but also lends support to essential morphological assumptions of the theory itself since, irrespective of the occurrence of these forms in poetry, they are normally proposed as the aṣl from which assimilated (e.g. *rādidun > rāddun) or apocopated (e.g. ğawāriya > ğawārin) forms are derived, based on the assumption of triliteral rather than biliteral roots for geminate and final weak verbs. b. The word baḫ (in) (bravo! excellent! etc.) appears in a line by ʿAğğāğ as baḫḫin, with doubling of the ḫ .340 Poetic ḍarūra, according to Sībawayhi, causes the original doubling to resurface and confirms the correctness of the triliteral nature of baḫ (in) as proposed by the theory. Sībawayhi strengthens his argument by citing it alongside the case of ruba which, he says, originates from rubba and not vice versa since the diminutive of ruba can only be rubayb in which the triliteral root resurfaces. c. Preceded by the preposition min, ʿalu may be changed in ḍarūra to ʿalā. Sībawayhi describes this as an example of radd ilā l-aṣl,341 obviously because of the assumption that the root of ʿalu is triliteral (ʿlw, the final radical having become a long ā in ʿalā). The occurrence of min ʿalā in poetry is thus shown to be supportive of the analysis of ʿalu as triliteral although the latter’s final short vowel may erroneously suggest a biliteral origin. d. Sībawayhi cites two lines of poetry in one of which the construction li-T̠aʿlabata bni Nawfalin bni Ğisri occurs and in the other the construction min Qaysin bni T̠aʿlaba(h).342 According to the norms of prose or ordinary speech, proper nouns that are followed by bin are not nunated, and thus one would expect li-T̠aʿlabata bni Nawfali bni Ğisri and min Qaysi bni T̠aʿlaba(h) respectively. The general norms of nunation of nouns, apart from those applicable to proper nouns with bin, however, stipulate that Nawfal and Qays are triptotes and may be nunated. Accordingly, their nunated forms which appear in the two lines cited by Sībawayhi 340

Ibid., III, 452–453. Ibid., III, 453; cf. Sīrāfī, Abyāt II, 277–278 and Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna IX, 437–439; X, 165–166. 342 Kitāb III, 505–506; cf. Sīrāfī, Abyāt II, 293–294. 341

112

chapter two

are consistent with the qiyās and thus confirm the original usage since nunation—even in constructions with bin—restores to them their original triptotic status. e. The hamza of the fourth form af ʿala is normally elided in both the active and passive forms of the imperfect (cf. yuḫriğu < *yuʾaḫriğu and yuḫrağu < *yuʾaḫrağu). Sībawayhi, however, cites the form yuʾat̠fayn(a) (to be used as at̠āfī, andirons) which occurs in a line by Ḫ itạ̄ m al-Muğāšiʿī343 and attributes to Ḫ alīl the view that the retention of the hamza in the imperfect of the fourth form is the qiyās, that is, what agrees with the general norm since the prefixes of the augmented forms are normally retained as in the case of tāʿ in the fifth and six forms (yatafaʿʿalu and yatafāʿalu respectively). The conclusion which Sībawayhi draws is that the occurrence of yuʾat̠fayn(a) instead of yut̠fayn(a) restores the origin due to ḍarūra. f. Most Arabs, according to Sībawayhi, use the word malak (messenger) without a hamza in spite of the fact that it is originally with a hamza.344 The occurrence of malʾak in a line by ʿAlqama is hence Sībawayhi’s proof of that aṣl which has been changed in prose or ordinary speech. Consequently, the root of the word is lʾk or ʾlk, but not mlk (cf. Sībawayhi’s citing of maʾlaka with metathesis).345 8. Group Membership The linguistic data which the early lexicographers amassed by the time of Sībawayhi, and which he had to account for in his system of grammatical analysis, was so vast and at times contradictory that it surely had to undergo a process of organization and classification. Given the variety of genres which the data embraces (i.e. the Qurʾān, the prophetic tradition, the speech of the Bedouin and poetry), the organiza-

343 Kitāb IV, 279; cf. Ibn Ğinnī, Munṣif I, 37, 192; II, 184 and Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 144 where yuʾakramā is cited in poetry instead of yukramā. 344 Kitāb IV, 379–380. 345 For the metathesis of ʾlk > lʾk, see Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān: ʾLK, LʾK (where Sībawayhi is mentioned) and MLK. Note also that Māzinī (Taṣrīf II, 102) cites the plural forms malāʾika and malāʾik as an additional proof for the restoration of the aṣl even in prose. For his part, Ibn Ğinnī (Munṣif II, 103–104) expresses the view that lʾk is the original root and that ʾlk is the result of metathesis.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

113

tional process from this perspective in the Kitāb is mainly the result of Sībawayhi’s awareness of the peculiarities of each genre, particularly at the level of the divide between poetry and prose or ordinary speech (cf., for example, the concept of ḍarūra in poetry). At a different level, the prose and even the poetry material which forms part of Sībawayhi’s corpus was derived from a variety of dialects and thus had to be classified according to the level of its acceptability and agreement with qiyās, and consequently according to whether it may be generalized by analogy or should be restricted to attested usage but not employed as a model to be emulated. Other than the criteria pertaining to genres and dialects, Sībawayhi’s analysis of his material is highly dependent on a variety of criteria which determine the status (cf. his term manzila) of a linguistic element in relation to a certain counterpart or to other members within a defined group. In this section, we shall identify the criteria of group membership and examine how Sībawayhi—as part of his relentless effort to demonstrate that linguistic phenomena are not haphazard and reveal the “wisdom” on which they are founded—utilizes his classification of sounds, words, patterns, etc. to justify the position which they occupy within their wider context. The most basic criteria on which the hierarchical arrangement of two or more linguistic elements in the Kitāb rests are the difference between these elements (1) in their “lightness” (ḫiffa) and “heaviness” (t̠iqal); (2) in their being “first” (awwal) or not (that is whether they are “basic” or “derived” forms which are the result of prefixation, suffixation, modification, etc.); (3) in their being the “basic” member of a group or a “subsidiary” member which is less representative of the group as a whole;346 (4) in their declinability (tamakkun) and indeclinability (ʿadam tamakkun), particularly with regard to nunation; and (5) in the level of their “strength” (quwwa) as reflected in a variety of features, such as their ability to govern, to be analogically extended and to have more freedom of word order.347

346 Note that Owens (1988: 204–206, 218–220; cf. 2000: 296–298) uses the distinction marked/unmarked corresponding to aṣl/farʿ in order to describe the relationship between a more basic member and a less basic one. Carter (2004: 69), on the other hand, argues that some hierarchies “look similar to the modern opposition between marked and unmarked features, but this concept is not essential for an understanding of the Kitāb”. 347 See a detailed discussion of these five types of difference in Baalbaki (1979: 15–19).

114

chapter two

The above hierarchies are applied at the phonological, morphological and syntactical levels. At each level, a set of hierarchies is proposed to explain certain phenomena or relationships, and consequently linguistic elements are shown to behave in accordance with their “merit”, which is a function of their position in a particular hierarchy. Perhaps the simplest set of hierarchies is the phonetic/phonological one since it involves but a few easily demonstrable axioms, most notable among which are the following:348 1. Vowels, in Ḫ alīl’s view, are zawāʾid (augments) which follow the consonant in order to make it pronounceable (yalḥ aqna l-ḥ arf li-yūṣal ilā l-takallum bihi).349 This and Sībawayhi’s own use of the term zawāʾid 350 reveal that he gives consonants priority over vowels, and this is reflected mainly in his discussion of vowel mutation which is considerably more widespread than changes which affect consonants. 2. The vowels themselves, both short and long ones, are hierarchally arranged as follows, starting with the “lightest” (aḫ aff; cf. first criterion of hierarchy): fatḥ a/alif, kasra/yāʾ and ḍamma/wāw.351 Among the numerous phenomena which Sībawayhi explains according to what each vowel “merits” within this hierarchy are the occurrence of the pattern faʿila more frequently than the pattern faʿula and the use of šaḥ iḥtu and baḫiltu rather than the expected *šaḥ uḥtu and *baḫultu;352 the shift faḫid̠ > faḫ d̠ and rusul > rusl but not ğamal > *ğaml;353 the use of fatḥ a instead of kasra in the genitive of diptotes;354 the occurrence of fatḥ a in the vocative when the constuction is lengthy (ḥīna ṭāla l-kalām), as in yā ʿAbdallāhi and yā rağulan ṣāliḥ an

348 Other examples of phonological hierarchy are mentioned by al-Nassir (1993: 110–114). These include initial element > medial element > final element, syllable initial position, open vowel > close vowel, and back vowel > front vowel. 349 Kitāb IV, 241–242. 350 Cf. ibid., III, 544; IV, 328. 351 Cf. the expressions: al-ğarr kāna aḫ aff ʿalayhim min al-raf ʿ (III, 302); al-kasra aḫ aff ʿalayhim min al-ḍamma and al-yāʾ aḫ aff ʿalayhim min al-wāw wa-akt̠ar (IV, 37); al-yāʾ wa-l-wāw at̠qal ʿalayhim min al-alif and al-yāʾ aḫ aff ʿalayhim min al-wāw (IV, 167); al-fatḥ aḫ aff ʿalayhim wa-l-alif (IV, 188). 352 Ibid., IV, 36–37. Note that *šaḥuḥtu and *baḫultu were expected because permanent states and naturally inherent qualities are normally expressed by the pattern faʿula. 353 Ibid., IV, 167, 188. 354 Ibid., I, 21.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

115

versus yā Zaydu;355 and the frequent use of fatḥ a with compounds which were originally two separate words, such as ḫ amsata ʿašara, ḥ ayṣa bayṣa, Ḥ aḍramawta and ṣabāḥ a masāʾa.356 3. The absence of a vowel (i.e. sukūn) is associated with weakness (cf. fifth criterion of hierarchy, quwwa) relative to the presence of a vowel (ḥ araka). This may be best exemplified by the expression ḥ āğiz ġayr ḥ aṣīn (lit. an insecure barrier) which Sībawayhi uses to explain those forms in which the presence of a sukūn does not prevent an adjacent consonant from being affected by a preceding or succeeding vowel. For example, the “bad use” (luġa radīʾa) of minhim in the dialect of Rabīʿa—where the pronominal suffix -hum is changed to -him under the influence of the preceding vowel—is thought to have resulted from the inability of the quiescent nūn to act as a barrier which prevents the progressive transfer of the kasra.357 A much more frequent indication of the weakness of sukūn in this respect is the regressive assimilation of the vowel of the second radical of the imperative verb, as in uqtul which Sībawayhi cites to assert that the consonant which is not followed by a vowel (here the quiescent qāf ) is for all practical purposes non-existent (kaʾannahu laysa baynahumā šayʾ),358 unlike consonants which are followed by vowels and are thus not subject to such assimilation. 4. Voiceless (mahmūs) phonemes are described as lighter (aḫ aff ) than voiced (mağhūr) ones.359 In describing the difference between mahmūs and mağhūr phonemes, Sībawayhi says that the former are characterized by the weakness of the “friction” at the place of articulation (uḍʿifa l-iʿtimād fī mawḍiʿihi) and by the subsequent flow of breath (ḥ attā ğarā l-nafas maʿahu), whereas the latter are characterized by the full extent of that “friction” (ušbiʿa l-iʿtimād fī mawḍiʿihi) and by the prevention of the breath flow until the sound is produced (manaʿa l-nafas an yağrī maʿahu ḥ attā yanqaḍī l-iʿtimād ʿalayhi).360 Based on the hierarchical element of ḫiffa, Sībawayhi explains why the voiceless ḥ āʾ is more likely to be followed by another ḥ āʾ (as in duplicated verbs of the type radadtu) than voiced ʿayn to be followed

355 356 357 358 359 360

Ibid., II, 182–183. Ibid., III, 298–303. Ibid., IV, 196–197. Ibid., III, 234. Ibid., IV, 450: wa-l-mahmūs aḫ aff min al-mağhūr. Ibid., IV, 434.

116

chapter two

by another ʿayn and justifies several cases of idġām (gemination) in which ʿayn is merged with ḥ āʾ.361 5. Emphatic consonants are better (afḍal) than their non-emphatic counterparts. Ṭ āʾ, for example, is better because of its emphatic nature than tāʾ, and thus “merits” not to become tāʾ in gemination.362 Similarly, dāl cannot prevail against ṭāʾ in gemination since the latter is emphatic (muṭbaq) and thus more diffused (afšā) in sound than non-emphatic dāl.363 The prevalence of ṭāʾ over dāl elicits the mention of the term iğḥ āf which Sībawayhi often uses, along with its synonym iḫ lāl, to refer to the injustice that would have occurred had a certain order of hierarchy not been observed. In this case, the hypothetical assimilation of ṭāʾ into dāl would be iğḥ āf (injustice, unfairness) because it is not in line with the quwwa which ṭāʾ enjoys, based on its being muṭbaq and afšā, relative to dāl.364 The hierarchical arrangement of linguistic elements in the realms of morphology and syntax is inherently conjectural and hence less easily demonstrable than in phonology. The following hierarchies are among the most basic ones in morphology and obviously represent an attempt on the part of Sībawayhi to arrange linguistic data according to a well-defined scheme which is primarily based on his own perception of the relationships that govern its constituents. Unlike phonological hierarchies which are supported by concrete examples and are empirically verifiable (such as the idġām of ʿayn and ḥ āʾ or tāʾ and ṭāʾ), the examples which Sībawayhi provides in morphology are much more open to interpretation and do not necessarily support the axioms which he tries to prove: 1. In a lengthy chapter in which he deals with the number of radicals which Arabic words are made of (bāb ʿiddat mā yakūn ʿalayhi l-kalim),365 Sībawayhi divides words according to the number of their radicals without any augments to uniliterals, biliterals, triliter361

Ibid., IV, 450–451. Ibid., IV, 448. 363 Ibid., IV, 460. 364 The term iğḥ āf is clearly expressive of injustice in the words of Ibn al-Anbārī (d. 577/1181) on the subject of idġām: wa-innamā lam yağuz idġām al-ḥ arf fī mā huwa anqaṣ ṣawtan minhu li-annahu yuʾaddī ilā l-iğḥ āf bihi wa-ibṭāl mā lahu min al-faḍl ʿalā muqāribihi (Asrār 426). 365 Ibid., IV, 216 ff. 362

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

117

als, quadriliterals and quinqueliterals. He argues that triliterals, by virtue of their being awwal (cf. second criterion of hierarchy), are described as the most abundant among the five types (cf. the expression akt̠ar al-kalām fī kull šayʾ min al-asmāʾ wa-l-af ʿāl wa-ġayrihimā wa-d̠ālika li-annahu kaʾannahu huwa l-awwal fa-min t̠amma tamakkana fī l-kalām).366 Triliterals, as the text suggests, “merit” a special status, and this manifests itself in a number of phenomena, most notable among which are: (1) that most words, whether nouns or verbs, or other than these two (cf. wa-ġayrihimā) are triliteral; (2) that words whose radicals are less than three are the result of omission from triliteral roots; (3) that words whose radicals are more than three are the result of augmentation of triliteral roots; and (4) that quinqueliterals in particular cannot be verbs because of their potential heaviness (t̠iqal), contrary to triliterals and quadriliterals. Obviously, the above scheme is highly conjectural, and although Sībawayhi employs it to justify many phenomena related to word structure, it lacks the specificity and concreteness which characterize his justification of the phonological phenomena discussed above. The concept of “injustice” expressed by the terms iğḥ āf and iḫ lāl (cf. 5 above) is also used with regard to the number of radicals in a word and linked to hierarchy through quwwa. Based on the quwwa of nouns relative to verbs and particles (wa-huwa l-awwal wa-l-aqwā), it would for example be iğḥ āf to have a uniliteral noun since that would require the omission of two radicals from the shortest nominal root, the triliteral (cf. the expressions li-annahu ʿindahum iğḥ āf an yad̠hab min aqall al-kalām ʿadadan ḥ arfāni and li-annahu iḫlāl ʿindahum bihinna li-annahu ḥ ad̠f min aqall al-ḥ urūf ʿadadan).367 Were this to take place, the noun would acquire the status (manzila) of the verb and the particle, and consequently the hierarchy would collapse. Moreover, biliteral nouns are scarce because the elision of a radical from triliteral nouns is construed as iḫ lāl. As far as verbs are concerned, their closeness to nouns entails that they should not be subject to iğḥ āf ( fa-lammā qaruba hād̠ā l-qurb lam yuğḥ af bihi). Thus, verbs are ordinarily not uniliteral, except for imperatives such as ʿi (be attentive!) and qi (protect!). Finally, at the bottom of the hierarchy are particles since these are mainly biliteral

366 367

Ibid., IV, 229–230. Ibid., IV, 218–219.

118

chapter two

and uniliteral—a reflection of what they “merit” (cf. ağdar) based on their position vis-à-vis nouns and verbs.368 2. Compared with the definite (maʿrifa), the indefinite (nakira) is said to be awwal, in the sense that the definite article is prefixed to an existent indefinite noun. Consequently, the indefinite is described as lighter (aḫ aff; cf. first criterion of hierarchy) and more declinable (ašadd tamakkunan; cf. fourth criterion).369 Its declinability—which basically refers here to nunation—is reflected in the fact that most words are declinable when they are indefinite (akt̠ar al-kalām yanṣarif fī l-nakira). Furthermore, the relationship between the definite and indefinite is extended to their affixes. Because the definite is subsidiary to (cf. baʿda, after) the indefinite, nunation, which is linked with the indefinite, is said to have priority over (cf. qabla, before) the definite article.370 On the basis of this, Sībawayhi argues elsewhere that the dual and sound masculine plural are constructed out of the indefinite rather than the definite and explains the difference between al-ḍāribā Zaydin and al-ḍāribū ʿAmrin (where the definite active participle is deprived of its nūn of the dual and the plural, and the second word is in the genitive), on the one hand, and hād̠āni l-ḍāribāni Zaydan and hāʾulāʾi l-ḍāribūna l-rağula (where the active participle preserves its nūn and the second word is in the accusative), on the other.371 The context of the argument indicates that both the definite and indefinite “merit” the treatment which they receive based on the latter’s priority over the former. 3. The relationship between masculine and feminine is strikingly parallel to the relationship between indefinite and definite. Thus, the masculine is awwal since the feminine is derived from it: wa-innamā yaḫruğ al-taʾnit̠ min al-tad̠kīr, a reference to the suffixation of the feminine (cf. the prefixation of the definite). Because it is awwal, masculine is also aḫ aff and more readily accepts nunation since

368

Ibid., IV, 220. Ibid., I, 22; cf. III, 194 and 297 where the maʿrifa is said to be heavier (at̠qal) than the nakira. 370 Ibid., I, 184. 371 Ibid., I, 183–184. Sībawayhi’s argument here rests on the assumption that the nūn of the dual and sound masculine plural in al-ḍāribāni Zaydan and al-ḍāribūna l-rağula, unlike tanwīn, coexists with the definite article and that the nūn was not introduced after the noun was prefixed with al- (wa-lam tadḫul ʿalā l-ism baʿda an tat̠but fīhi l-alif wa-l-lām). 369

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

119

this is a sign of what is lighter and more declinable ( fa-l-tanwīn ʿalāma li-l-amkan ʿindahum wa-l-aḫ aff ʿalayhim).372 The difference in declinability between masculine and feminine is also cited as the most fundamental argument in explaining why diptotes are more associated with feminine than masculine nouns.373 4. The singular is said to be awwal in relation with the plural, and is more declinable (ašadd tamakkunan) than it since many of the latter’s patterns—such as mafāʿil and mafāʿīl, as in masāğid and mafātīḥ —are diptotes.374 As with the masculine and feminine in 3 above, the diptotic nature of many plural forms is explained by reference to the difference in declinability between singular and plural nouns.375 5. The noun is prior to the verb (al-asmāʾ hiya l-ūlā), is the source of its derivation (wa-innamā hiya min al-asmāʾ), and is more declinable than it, whereas the verb is heavier (at̠qal) than the noun.376 The lightness/heaviness distinction in this case is supported by a syntactical argument, namely, that in kalām (here nominal or verbal sentences), a verb must be accompanied by a noun whereas predication (isnād) may occur with two nouns without the intervention of a verb. For example, Allāhu ilāhunā and ʿAbdullāhi aḫūnā are kalām and do not include verbs, while the subject of a verb must be either mentioned, as in qāma ʿAbdullāhi, or supplied through taqdīr if it is not overtly stated. Also in the comparison between nouns and verbs, declinability is an important issue. Being more declinable (ašadd tamakkunan) than verbs, diptotic nouns which agree with verbal patterns (e.g. abyaḍu and aswadu; cf. ad̠habu and aʿlamu) are justified on the basis of their analogy to verbs.377 But even nouns of the af ʿal pattern are treated as triptotes if they are not construed as adjectives (ṣifāt).378 This makes the hierarchy tripartite, with ṣifa in the middle between ism and fiʿl, and demonstrates how each of them receives the treatment it deserves based on its position in the hierarchy.

372

Ibid., I, 22. Ibid., III, 221: wa-d̠ālika anna l-mud̠akkar ašadd tamakkunan fa-li-d̠ālika kāna aḥ mal li-l-tanwīn. 374 Ibid., I, 22. 375 Ibid., III, 227. 376 Ibid., I, 20–21. 377 Ibid., I, 21; III, 193 ff. 378 Ibid., III, 200 ff. 373

120

chapter two

The arrangement of linguistic elements according to a hierarchical order is thus a prominent feature of Sībawayhi’s phonological and morphological analysis. Yet nowhere does hierarchy or group membership have a far-reaching impact on Sībawayhi’s grammatical analysis than in the realm of syntax where a large number of essential concepts are closely linked with the “merit” which each element is assigned based on its status compared with other elements. Due to the intricate nature of hierarchical arrangement at the syntactical level, it is more meaningful to discuss the data from the perspective of its relationship with major syntactical issues rather than as separate examples. We shall therefore discuss here some of these issues which are directly affected by hierarchy and which demonstrate its crucial role in Sībawayhi’s analysis of constructions and the relationships their elements have among each other: 1. Case-endings: Sībawayhi’s interpretation of the nominative, the accusative and the genitive is based on a hierarchy in which ibtidāʾ (topicality; lit. inception) is viewed as the noun’s primary state (alism awwal aḥwālihi l-ibtidāʾ).379 The above three types of iʿrāb and the case-endings associated with them are thus justified in relationship with the primacy of ibtidāʾ. Since ibtidāʾ is associated with the nominative, nominal constructions in which the nominative is attributed to a ʿāmil other than ibtidāʾ need justification. In the case of kāna constructions, as in kāna ʿAbdullāhi munṭaliqan, the nominative is not awwal since it is not due to ibtidāʾ but to another ʿāmil which causes the nominative, i.e. a rāfiʿ. By the same token, the accusative and the genitive are not awwal because they are said to be introduced to the primary state of the noun (i.e. ibtidāʾ) and thus are secondary to it. The examples which illustrate this are the counterparts of the above construction which begins with kāna. These are, raʾaytu ʿAbdallāhi munṭaliqan and marartu bi-ʿAbdillāhi munṭaliqan.380 The primacy of ibtidāʾ is further strengthened by two arguments which Sībawayhi introduces. The first of these is that the primacy of ibtidāʾ is compared with the primacy of the singular over the plural (al-wāḥ id awwal al-ʿadad) as well as with the primacy of the indefinite over the definite (al-nakira qabla l-maʿrifa), and is therefore part of a general scheme according to which hierarchies are

379 380

Ibid., I, 23; see also Baalbaki (1993: 51–53). Ibid., I, 23–24.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

121

arranged. The second argument is cited in a different chapter which deals with mubtadaʾ as part of the process of predication or isnād. Here, Sībawayhi asserts his belief that ibtidāʾ is awwal, albeit from the perspective of its relationship with the predicate. By attributing the nominative with which the mubtadaʾ is associated to the abstract operant of ibtidāʾ itself, he confirms the primacy of both ibtidāʾ and the noun which occupies its position, the mubtadaʾ, over the subsidiary positions of the accusative, the nominative other than in ibtidāʾ, and the genitive (cf. the expression al-nāṣib wa-l-rāfiʿ siwā l-ibtidāʾ wa-l-ğarr).381 Within this hierarchy, the nominative of ibtidāʾ has priority over the nominative of other grammatical positions, and, in all cases, the nominative has priority over the accusative and the genitive, which we may accordingly assume to be the “oblique” cases in Sībawayhi’s view. 2. Analogy: By this we refer to a specific aspect of qiyās, namely, the extension to a linguistic element of the treatment which another element has due to a perceived similarity between them.382 But based on the realization that the two elements involved in this analogical extension are different in other aspects (cf. the frequent expression wa-qad yušabbihūna l-šayʾ wa-laysa mit̠lahu fī ğamīʿ aḥ wālihi),383 Sībawayhi establishes hierarchies which he supports by citing the relative quwwa (strength) of each element compared with one other element or with a group of elements which share a common feature. At the level of comparison with one element from the perspective of quwwa, a good example is the analogical extension of the energetic nūn with jussive verbs in conditional contexts to jussive verbs in non-conditional contexts. Sībawayhi considers the suffixation of this nūn to be stronger with the conditional than elsewhere (wa-hiya fī l-ğazāʾ aqwā) and supports his view by observing that the weaker use is restricted to poetic license (iḍtị rār).384 A similar example involving two elements only is the analogical extension of the occurrence of a noun following an interrogative particle to its occurrence following a negative particle. Since this use is the result of their analogy to interrogative particles (šabbahūhā bi-ḥ urūf al-istifhām), negative

381 382 383 384

Ibid., loc. cit. Cf. above, 47. Ibid., I, 182; cf. II, 148; III, 278, 302, 374, 413; IV, 195. Ibid., III, 515–516.

122

chapter two

particles cannot have priority over what they are likened to (wa-lam yabluġna an yakunna mit̠l mā šubbihna bihi).385 A more complex hierarchy is established by Sībawayhi between the verb and a number of other categories according to the following order of their quwwa: a. The verb ( fiʿl): This is the strongest element in the set, and the fact that it governs a subject (and an object in the case of transitive verbs) is analogically extended to the other elements mentioned below. The arrangement of these elements is largely a function of their quwwa, and it is interesting to note that in a short passage which deals with the verb and the categories which are linked to it, Sībawayhi uses the term quwwa five times.386 b. The active and passive participles (asmāʾ al-fāʿilīn wa-l-maf ʿūlīn): These come immediately after the verb in order of quwwa because of their strong resemblance to verbs (cf. the statement fa-maf ʿūl mit̠l yuf ʿal wa-fāʿil mit̠l yaf ʿal).387 In particular, their ability to govern both indefinite and definite nouns and to preserve their government even if they are deferred or elided (yaʿmal fī l-maʿrifa kullihā wa-lnakira muqaddaman wa-muʾaḫ ḫ aran wa-muḍmaran)388 is a sign of the strength which they have acquired by analogy to the verb. But being subsidiary to the verb, participles do not attain its strength. This is reflected, for example, in the inability of the active participle which indicates the past tense to govern the accusative, as in hād̠ā ḍāribu ʿAbdillāhi wa-aḫīhi.389 c. The verbal noun (maṣdar): Although this is mentioned with the active and passive participles as one of the nouns which owe to the verb their ability to govern, its quwwa is not equal to that of either of them. Sībawayhi expresses this by saying that the verbal noun, unlike

385 Ibid., I, 145–146; cf. Baġdādī’s assertion, based on the same šāhid which Sībawayhi cites, that negative particles do not have the same quwwa as interrogative particles (Ḫ izāna III, 25–26). 386 Ibid., I, 33. 387 Ibid., I, 109. 388 Ibid., I, 108. 389 Ibid., I, 171; cf. I, 130. Sībawayhi’s example refers to the fact that the lack of nunation in the active participle is semantically associated with past tense whereas its nunation indicates future tense as in (our) hād̠ā ḍāribun ʿAbdallāhi wa-aḫ āhu, which implies an intention of hitting and not an accomplished act.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

123

the active participle, does not have an inherent subject, for whereas the active participle may have as its subject an assumed pronoun (cf. hād̠ā ḍāribun Zaydan), the verbal noun is bound to have its subject mentioned or else no subject may be assumed (cf. ʿağibtu min ḍarbin Zaydan).390 Furthermore, the verbal noun is shown to be analogous to the active participle (hence subsidiary to it) and not vice versa, as in ʿağibtu min al-ḍarbi Zaydan and hād̠ā ḍarbu ʿAbdillāhi which are formed on the basis of ʿağibtu min al-ḍāribi Zaydan and hād̠ā ḍāribu ʿAbdillāhi respectively.391 d. The assimilate adjective (ṣifa mušabbaha): Just as the active participle is subsidiary to the verb and secondary to it in quwwa, the assimilate adjective is analogous and hence subsidiary to the active participle (cf. the expression al-ṣifa l-mušabbaha bi-l-fāʿil) and secondary to it in quwwa.392 At the syntactic level, this relatively weak status of the assimilate object is reflected in the abundance of constructions in which it is followed by the genitive, as in hād̠ā ḥ asanu l-wağhi, huwa aḥmaru bayni l-ʿaynayni and huwa ğayyidu wağhi l-dāri.393 Such constructions are described as better and more frequent (aḥ san wa-akt̠ar) than those in which the assimilate object governs the accusative, as in hād̠ā ḥ asanun wağhan. It is implied in this argument that because the assimilate object is more distant from the verb than the active participle, iḍāfa (annexion) is more suitable for it than other forms of construction because iḍāfa is a purely nominal phenomenon in which verbs do not feature. On the other hand, the active participle is directly analogous to the verb and thus more readily accepts verbal features such as governing the accusative (cf. hād̠ā ḍāribun Zaydan), in addition to its occurrence in iḍāfa constructions by virtue of its nominality (cf. hād̠ā ḍāribu l-rağuli). e. Comparative af ʿal and numerals: These represent a further step down the hierarchy since they are considered to be weaker than the assimilate adjective, which itself is weaker than the active participle ( fa-lam taqwa quwwat al-mušabbaha kamā lam taqwa l-mušabbaha quwwat mā ğarā mağrā l-fiʿl).394 Both the comparative (e.g. ḫ ayrun minka, aḥ sanu minka) and numerals (e.g. ʿišrūna) are described as

390 391 392 393 394

Ibid., I, 189. Ibid., I, 192–193. Ibid., I, 33, 194. Ibid., I, 195. Ibid., I, 204; cf. II, 24–25.

124

chapter two

annexed to nouns (mulḥ aqa bi-l-asmāʾ) and thus further removed from the verb than those nouns—such as participles—which resemble verbs and acquire some of their properties, particularly in government. Both of them have but limited “merit”, and this is syntactically translated in the conditions pertaining to their operant (maʿmūl) which can only be (1) indefinite and singular, as in huwa ḫ ayrun ʿamalan and ʿišrūna dirhaman and (2) separated from its ʿāmil either by an uttered element, as in huwa aḥ sanu minka wağhan, or by an assumed one, as in huwa ḫayrun ʿamalan and ʿišrūna dirhaman which are interpreted as modified versions of huwa ḫ ayrun minka ʿamalan and ʿišrūna min al-darāhimi respectively.395 The above complex set of relationships comprise further subdivisions which are also connected to quwwa and hence to “merit”. The two most notable of these subdivisions pertain to verbs and active participles. As far as verbs are concerned, Sībawayhi distinguishes between the verb which is truly transitive (taʿaddā ilā maf ʿūl) and that which has the status of the reflexive but is not truly transitive (wa-innamā huwa bi-manzilat al-infiʿāl lā yataʿaddā ilā maf ʿūl).396 The latter type is exemplified by expressions of the type imtalaʾtu māʾan and tafaqqaʾtu šaḥ man in which the verbs are made to govern a direct object (unfid̠a ilā maf ʿūl) in spite of their reflexive nature. Such expressions, in line with the perception that their verbs are not as strong as truly transitive verbs (lam yaqwa quwwat ġayrihi mimmā taʿaddā ilā maf ʿūl), are unable (1) to have pronominal suffixes as their object (e.g. *imtalaʾtuhu and *tafaqqaʾtuhu), (2) to govern the definite, be it a suffix or any other definite noun (e.g. *imtalaʾtuhu and *imtalaʾtu l-māʾa), and (3) to be preceded by their object (e.g. *māʾan imtalaʾtu and *šaḥman tafaqqaʾtu). The second subdivision concerns the active participle which, as a general term, includes the subclass of active participles which indicate mubālaġa (intensiveness), as in the patterns faʿūl, faʿʿāl, mif ʿāl and faʿil (e.g. ḍarūb, labbās, minḥ ār and ḥ ad̠ir).397 Such active participles, because of their proximity to active participles proper (i.e. those which do not express intensiveness), exhibit several characteristics which are indicative of quwwa, such as transitivity and capacity to govern even if they are

395 396 397

Ibid., II, 24–25. Ibid., I, 204–205. Ibid., I, 110–118.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

125

deferred or deleted. They are, however, secondary to active participles proper and originally not analogous to verbs (wa-laysat bi-l-abniya llatī hiya fī l-aṣl an tağrī mağrā l-fiʿl).398 According to Sībawayhi, this is why their patterns have a purely nominal signification when they are not intended to intensify the verbs from which they are derived, as in rasūl/ʿağūz and ʿadīl/ğalīs of the patterns faʿūl and faʿīl respectively. From the perspective of the relationship between mubālaġa forms and assimilate adjectives, however, the former have priority in many aspects, most notably since the latter cannot be deferred, cannot govern if they are deleted, and cannot be separated from their maʿmūl (e.g. *huwa karīmun fīhā ḥ asaba l-abi).399 The linear arrangement of the above items in accordance with their quwwa and “merit” may thus be represented as follows: transitive verbs; reflexive verbs which are caused to be transitive; active and passive participles; active participles which indicate mubālaġa; verbal nouns; assimilate adjectives; comparative af ʿal and numerals. On a wider scale, the three parts of speech, ism, fiʿl and ḥ arf, are hierarchically arranged in the Kitāb on the basis of the degree of their acceptance of case-endings. Being mostly muʿrab, nouns have priority over verbs, whereas particles come third because they lack iʿrāb. On the basis of analogy, Sībawayhi argues that the imperfect is muʿrab due to its resemblance to nouns, as the term muḍāriʿ (lit. similar to) suggests.400 Conversely, the lack of iʿrāb in certain nouns is justified on the basis of their resemblance to particles. Here the term muḍāriʿa is used to confirm the analogy.401 Furthermore, analogy is applied within the same part of speech to establish a hierarchy. This is most obvious in the case of verbs whose order of hierarchy is imperfect, perfect and imperative because the imperfect is the one which enjoys the highest degree of iʿrāb, followed by the perfect which ends with a vowel (e.g. ḍaraba) as a result of its replacement of the imperfect and the noun (i.e. participle) after indefinite nouns (cf. hād̠ā rağulun ḍarabanā/ yaḍribunā/ḍāribunā.402 On the other hand, the fact that the imperative ends with sukūn (e.g. iḍrib) and not a vowel is justified on the basis of its inability to syntactically 398

Ibid., I, 117. Ibid., I, 115. 400 Cf. expressions like al-af ʿāl al-muḍāriʿa li-asmāʾ al-fāʿilīn (I, 13), ḍāraʿat al-fāʿil/ asmāʾ al-fāʿilīn (I, 14), etc. 401 Cf. the expression al-asmāʾ ġayr al-mutamakkina l-muḍāriʿa ʿindahum mā laysa bi-ism wa-lā fiʿl mimmā ğāʾa li-maʿnā laysa ġayr (I, 15). 402 Ibid., I, 16; cf. above, 58. 399

126

chapter two

replace the imperfect in such constructions (cf. [our example as implied by the context] *hād̠ā rağulun iḍrib/iḍribnā).403 3. Specialization and regimen: The concept of specialization is usually indicated by derivatives of the root ḫ sṣ ̣ but is often implied in the discussion without the use of a specific term. Examples of specialization include the four patterns af ʿul, af ʿāl, af ʿila and fiʿla (e.g. aklub, ağmāl, ağriba and ġilma) which express the plural of paucity. These patterns are described as specialized in that type of plural (wa-ʿlam anna li-adnā l-ʿadad abniya hiya muḫtaṣsạ bihi), contrary to patterns which mainly indicate the plural of abundance but may also indicate the plural of paucity.404 Similarly, the proper nouns Suʿād and Zaynab are treated as diptotes even if they are used for naming the masculine because they are “established” in the feminine (tamakkanat fī l-muʾannat̠) and exclusively used in feminine proper nouns (ğuʿilat muḫtaṣsạ n bihā l-muʾannat̠ fī l-tasmiya).405 It is clear from such examples that specialized forms or patterns are given priority over their counterparts and that this is construed as a sign of quwwa. At the syntactical level, the quwwa of a linguistic element is often determined by its specialization in one part of speech, contrary to other elements which lack such specialization. Command and prohibition (al-amr wa-l-nahy), because they are always followed by an explicit or implicit verb (lā yaqaʿāni illā bi-l-fiʿl muẓharan aw muḍmaran), are stronger (aqwā) than interrogation (istifhām) because interrogative particles may be followed either by a noun or a verb.406 This syntactic specialization is also applied by Sībawayhi to operants and serves as the basis of distinction between particles that are able to govern and those that are not, as well as between particles which produce different effects on their operands. The link between specialization and government in the Kitāb, particularly the distinction between operants which affect nouns and those which affect verbs, has been already pointed out.407 As a concrete example, we have discussed in the light of the principle of specialization Sībawayhi’s assumption of an elided an to justify the subjunctive in

403 404 405 406 407

Ibid., I, 17. Ibid., III, 490. Ibid., III, 239. Ibid., I, 137–138. See above, 71.

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

127

constructions like lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī and concluded that the choice of an is based on a hierarchical order which gives it a special status, equivalent to that of umm, among the group of particles which cause the subjunctive.408 The concept of umm is firmly linked to this third type of hierarchy since the umm of a certain group of particles is the “basic” member of the group and enjoys more “privileges”, so to speak, than any of its sisters. For example, Sībawayhi refers to alif, wāw and yā as ummahāt al-zawāʾid (most basic augments) because they are the most frequently used augments and no word (here ḥ arf ) is free from any of them or from the short vowels which correspond to them.409 At the level of particles, conditional in is described as umm al-ğazāʾ and is compared with interrogative alif since both particles have characteristics which their sisters do not share.410 Sībawayhi cites Ḫ alīl’s view that in is the umm of conditional particles because it is the only particle which does not part with conditionality (lā tufāriq al-muğāzāt), whereas other conditional particles can become interrogative particles (cf. our example ḥ ayt̠umā).411 The “privilege” (cf. awlā, worthier or more deserving) which in enjoys based on its uniqueness is that the direct object of its protasis may be preposed and thus constructions of the type in Zaydan tarahu taḍrib are tolerated but not allowed with other conditional particles.412 Other “privileges” of in—also referred to as aṣl al-ğazāʾ—are that it may be separated from its protasis in poetry by the agent of the verb, as in the hemistich ʿāwid Harāta wa-in maʿmūruhā ḫ aribā (“Revisit Harāt even though its prosperity has turned into desolation”), and that its protasis and apodosis may be elided as in the expression in ḫ ayran fa-ḫ ayrun wa-in šarran fa-šarrun.413 Among interrogative particles, hamza is described as the one which does not part with interrogation (lā yazūl ʿanhu ilā ġayrihi) and which in origin is the only particle of interrogation (wa-laysa li-l-istifhām fī l-aṣl ġayruhu).414 It thus has the syntactic “privilege” of being followed by a noun instead of a verb. Similarly, illā 408

See above, 79. Ibid., IV, 318–319. 410 Ibid., I, 134. 411 Ibid., III, 63. 412 Ibid., I, 134. 413 Ibid., I, 258; III, 7, 112–113, 149. Note also the term aṣl al-ğazāʾ in Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 46, 50. 414 Kitāb I, 99. 409

128

chapter two

is granted a special status among exceptive particles, and even though Sībawayhi does not use umm to express this status, his reference to it as the exceptive particle (i.e. par excellence; cf. fa-ḥ arf al-istit̠nāʾ illā)415 firmly places it at the forefront of its group. This is corroborated by the fact that the criterion which he sets for admission to this group—both for nouns, such as ġayr and siwā, and verbs, such as lā yakūnu and ʿadā—is similarity of their meaning to illā. It should be noted that later grammarians more consistently use the term umm to refer to particles which Sībawayhi considers to be the “basic” members of their group (e.g. inna, kāna, the preposition bi- and the conjunction wa-),416 and that they considerably expand the theme of “privileges” pertaining to these particles.417 4. Taqdīr: Although Sībawayhi does not explicitly arrange the three parts of speech according to their ability to govern, it is clear in the Kitāb, and more so in the grammatical tradition as a whole, that verbs are more “established” in government, followed by particles and then by nouns. Evidence supporting this arrangement is overwhelming in the Kitāb, and among the most telling examples in the case of nouns is the argument that active and passive participles can govern because they resemble verbs and that assimilate adjectives, in turn, can govern because they resemble active participles which owe their regimen to verbs.418 In the case of particles, mā—which is considered to be a particle—is said to be analogous to laysa, a verb,419 and inna is likened to a transitive verb (i.e. an operant which governs both a nominative subject and an accusative direct object) because it governs both the nominative (i.e. its predicate) and the accusative (i.e. its subject).420 As far as nouns and particles are concerned, there is no comparison between them in the Kitāb, but it is safe to assume that the later grammarians’ view of particles as being more

415

Ibid., II, 309. For the views of later grammarians on such ummahāt, see Quḍāt (1995: 2967 ff.). 417 Cf., for example, Mubarrad’s expression wa-sa-nad̠kur in kayfa ṣārat aḥ aqq bi-lğazāʾ kamā anna l-alif aḥ aqq bi-l-istifhām wa-illā aḥ aqq bi-l-istit̠nāʾ wa-l-wāw aḥ aqq bi-l-ʿaṭf (Muqtaḍab II, 46). 418 Cf. Kitāb I, 108: hād̠ā bāb mā ğarā fī-l-istifhām min asmāʾ al-fāʿilīn wa-l-maf ʿulīn mağrā l-fiʿl kamā yağrī fī ġayrihi mağrā l-fiʿl and I, 194: hād̠ā bāb al-ṣifa l-mušabbaha bi-l-fāʿil fī mā ʿamilat fīhi. 419 Ibid., II, 131; cf. IV, 221. 420 Ibid., II, 131. 416

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

129

“established” in government than nouns is in line with Sībawayhi’s position if only because particles are assumed in the Kitāb to justify certain case-endings much more than nouns are. Other than the arrangement of the parts of speech according to their ability to govern, there seems to be a fundamental difference in the Kitāb between verbs and particles, on the one hand, and nouns, on the other, with regard to the reason for their taqdīr. Verbs and particles are generally supplied to constructions in order to account for the caseendings of the operands (maʿmūlāt). For example, the subjunctive in lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī is ascribed to an elided an;421 the genitive in wa-baladin to an elided rubba;422 the accusative status of the vocative to an elided verb (e.g. unādī);423 the accusative of specification, as in innā maʿšara l-ʿArabi, to an elided verb (e.g. aʿnī);424 and any accusative or nominative after conditional in to an elided verb determined by the construction itself.425 Furthermore, several chapters in the Kitāb revolve around the idea of an elided verb, mainly to justify the accusative in various constructions. The expression iḍmār al-fiʿl al-matrūk iẓhāruhu is frequently used in these chapters to signal the attribution of the accusative to an elided verb.426 The restoration of nouns, on the other hand, is largely free from the need to justify case-endings. This may be viewed as a direct result of the hierarchical classification of operants in order of strength (i.e. fiʿl, ḥ arf, ism). With few exceptions—such as the restoration of a noun to justify the genitive in annexion, that is, in iḍāfa constructions—nouns are normally introduced to constructions not in order to justify regimen and case-endings; rather, the intent is to reveal the underlying structure which contains all the linguistic elements which are necessary for meaning, and which are supposedly omitted for reasons such as taḫfīf or istiḫfāf (lightness), saʿat al-kalām (latitude of speech), and ʿilm al-muḫ āṭab bihi (the addressee’s knowledge of 421

Ibid., III, 28 ff. Ibid., I, 106. 423 Ibid., II, 182. 424 Ibid., II, 233–234; cf. II, 66. 425 Cf. the expression lā yantaṣib šayʾ baʿda in wa-lā yartafiʿ illā bi-fiʿl (I, 263). For example, in umrur ʿalā ayyuhum afḍalu in Zaydin wa-in ʿAmrin, the elided verb is assumed to be mararta, hence in mararta bi-Zaydin aw mararta bi-ʿAmrin. 426 Ibid., I, 253–361. Examples of such constructions are al-asada l-asada (I, 253), Makkata wa-rabbi l-Kaʿbati (I, 257), a-lā ṭaʿāma wa-law tamran (I, 269), aḫ ad̠tuhu bi-dirhamin fa-ṣāʿidan (I, 290), marḥ aban wa-ahlan (I, 295), kayfa anta wa-Zaydan (I, 303), mā laka wa-Zaydan (I, 307), etc. 422

130

chapter two

an implied element).427 For example, in the following three constructions lā [baʾsa/šayʾa] ʿalayka, mā minhum [wāḥ idun] māta ḥ attā raʾaytuhu fī ḥ āli kad̠ā wa-kad̠ā, and hal laka [ḥ āğatun] fī d̠ālika,428 the restored nouns inserted between brackets are not meant to justify case-endings in uttered parts, but to explain the meaning of the constructions and propose the “ideal utterance” compared to which an actual utterance is an “imperfect version”.429 5. Plasticity (taṣarruf ):430 This criterion of hierarchy refers to the uninflectedness of a linguistic element (here, its being restricted to one form, one case-ending, a fixed usage, etc.) as indicated by expressions such as wuḍiʿat mawḍiʿan wāḥidan; ğaʿalū lahu mit̠ālan wāḥidan yağrī ʿalayhi; ulzima fīhi wa-fī mā yaʿmal fīhi wağhan wāḥ idan; lazima hād̠ā hād̠ihi l-ṭarīqa fī kalāmihim.431 It also refers to the syntactical restrictions which apply to an element in contrast to other elements which enjoy greater freedom of word order.432 In the first sense, inna is described as being not as strong as a verb (lam taqwa quwwatahu) because it is uninflected (lam tataṣarraf ).433 As a result, its predicate may not precede its noun, as in *inna aḫūka ʿAbdallāhi, unlike the transitive verb whose direct object may precede its subject. The same is true of kaʾanna, and the same example (*kaʾanna aḫūka ʿAbdallāhi) is given in a much later chapter.434 Another comparison along the same lines is that between comparative af ʿal and the assimilate adjective435 (cf. items “d” and “e” under analogy above). Based on the criterion of taṣarruf, Sībawayhi argues that af ʿal is not as strong as the assimilate adjective ḥ asan (lam yaqwa quwwat al-ḥ asan) or as participles of the pattern fāʿil. He specifically mentions five aspects 427

Cf. Baalbaki (2005b: 53–54). Ibid., I, 224; II, 295, 400; III, 289 (for first example); II, 345; III, 289. 429 Cf. above, 83. Examples similar to those cited by Sībawayhi are abundant in the later sources, and they confirm our interpretation concerning the reason for restoring nouns as opposed to verbs and particles; cf. the following examples by Ibn Hišām (d. 761/1360): an iʿmal [durūʿan] sābiġātin; wa-lam yufarriqū bayna aḥ adin [wa-aḥ adin] minhum; man ʿamila ṣāliḥ an fa-[ʿamaluhu] li-nafsihi; and ukuluhā dāʾimun wa-ẓilluhā [dāʾimun] (Q 34:11, 4:152, 41:46, 13:35; Muġnī II, 626, 627, 629, 630). 430 For a general study of the notion of taṣarruf in the grammatical tradition, see Danecki (1993: 7–23). 431 Kitāb I, 46, 73, 203; II, 175 respectively. 432 Cf. Baalbaki (1979: 18–19). 433 Kitāb I, 59. 434 Ibid., II, 131. 435 Ibid., II, 24–25. 428

fundamental analytical tools in the kitĀb

131

of the restrictions that apply to af ʿal but not to ḥ asan: (1) it cannot occur without min (hence hād̠ā rağulun afḍalu minka, but not *hād̠ā rağulun afḍalu); (2) it cannot be preceded by the definite article (cf. al-ḥ asanu and *al-af ʿalu); (3) it cannot have an iḍāfa (annexion) relationship with a definite noun (hence al-ḥ asanu l-wağhi, but no counterpart with af ʿal); (4) it cannot be nunated (hence ḥ asanun wağhan, but no counterpart with af ʿal); and (5) it does not have a feminine form (hence ḥ asanatun, but not *af ʿalatun). As far as freedom of word order is concerned, some of the examples cited earlier in the discussion (e.g. the two types of transitive verbs represented by ḍarabtu Zaydan and Zaydan ḍarabtu; and imtalaʾtu māʾan and *māʾan imtalaʾtu) demonstrate how taṣarruf in this sense is a criterion of hierarchy based on quwwa. A similar example is ism fiʿl (lit. proper noun of the verb) which refers to a word that has the meaning of a verb but is neither a verb nor derived from a verb. This is judged to be less strong than ordinary verbs (laysa yaqwā hād̠ā quwwat al-fiʿl) because it does not match their freedom of word order (cf. the impermissibility of preposing their direct object, as in *Zaydan ḥ ad̠araka).436 A more complex situation of hierarchy and taṣarruf as related to word order obtains with kāna, laysa and mā. In this tripartite relationship, both kāna and laysa are verbs, but the latter does not have the same taṣarruf as kāna and other verbs437 and cannot be used without a predicate, unlike what the later grammarians call kāna l-tāmma (complete or absolute kāna), as in qad kāna ʿAbdullāhi which is equivalent in meaning to qad ḫ uliqa ʿAbdullāhi. In other words, kāna may be incomplete (nāqiṣ) when it requires a predicate, and complete when it does not require one, whereas laysa is restricted to one usage as the first sense of taṣarruf indicates. Compared with mā, however, laysa is judged to be stronger based on considerations related to word order because, contrary to mā which is unable to retain its regimen when its predicate precedes its subject, as in mā munṭaliqun ʿAbdullāhi but not *mā munṭaliqan ʿAbdullāhi, laysa does retain its regimen under similar conditions, as in laysa munṭaliqan ʿAbdullāhi.438 Sībawayhi’s views on this tripartite hierarchy, which are scattered in a number of passages in 436

Ibid., I, 252–253. Ibid., I, 46; II, 37, 400. 438 Ibid., I, 59; cf. II, 131. Note also that mā is shown to be unable to retain its regimen if its predicate is preceded by the exceptive particle illā (cf. laysa Zaydun illā munṭaliqan, 437

132

chapter two

the Kitāb, are largely adopted by subsequent grammarians who present them in the form of rules which determine the relative strength of each of the elements in the hierarchy. A most lucid presentation is provided by Ğurğānī (d. 471/1078) who argues that laysa is weaker than kāna because the latter is fully inflected, but stronger then mā because laysa is a verb to which pronouns may be suffixed (e.g. lastu, lastumā, etc.) whereas mā is a particle and cannot have pronominal suffixes attached to it.439 He concludes that laysa has an intermediate position (manzila bayn al-manzilatayn, a term most probably borrowed from the theological tradition) between kāna and mā, and that this is reflected in the degree of freedom of word order which each of the three enjoys. Most later authors, it should be noted, make further reference to this degree of syntactical freedom by examining the permissibility of various constructions which have kāna, laysa or mā. For example, the construction laysa qāʾiman Zaydun, in which the predicate of laysa precedes its subject, is allowed by most grammarians. Nevertheless, there are grammarians who dismiss this construction based on the view that laysa, unlike kāna, is not purely a verb since it bears resemblance to the particle mā and should be treated accordingly440 (note that *mā qāʾiman Zaydun is an impermissible construction). Moreover, the intermediate position of laysa between kāna and mā is the source of another controversy among the later grammarians who differ in whether preposing the predicate of laysa before it and before its subject, as in qāʾiman laysa Zaydun, is permissible on the analogy of kāna (cf. the permissibility of qāʾiman kāna Zaydun) or impermissible on the analogy of mā (cf. the impermissibility of *qāʾiman mā Zaydun).441

but mā Zaydun illā munṭaliqun), even in the Ḥ iğāzī dialect in which the predicate of mā takes the accusative as in mā hād̠ā bašaran (“No mortal is this”; Q 12: 31). 439 Ğurğānī, Muqtaṣid I, 408–409; cf. Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 140–141 and Inṣāf I, 163. 440 Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VII, 114. Note that the construction kāna qāʾiman Zaydun is unanimously accepted by the grammarians because of the purely verbal nature of kāna as opposed to laysa. 441 The construction qāʾiman laysa Zaydun is reported to be allowed by Ibn Barhān, Zamaḫšarī, Šalawbīn and Ibn ʿUṣfūr, but not by the Kufans, Mubarrad, Zağğāğ, Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Sīrāfī, Ğurğānī and Ibn Mālik; cf. Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 128 and Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 117. For a detailed study of issues pertaining to word order in constructions with kāna and its sisters, see Baalbaki (2004: 41–58, esp. 51–52).

CHAPTER THREE

SῙBAWAYHI’S ANALYTICAL METHODS 1. Introduction In the preceding chapter, some of the most fundamental analytical tools in the Kitāb have been examined. Although most of them were actually used by Sībawayhi’s predecessors and contemporaries—as Sībawayhi’s own quotations indicate—the Kitāb is the earliest source which allows a thorough examination of these tools as part of a fully developed grammatical system of analysis. In several cases, we have argued that Sībawayhi’s use of these analytical tools has left its distinctive mark on the whole of the Arab grammatical tradition. In fact, later authors did differ at times with Sībawayhi on details relating to the application and relative importance of each of these tools in grammatical study, but they hardly ever challenged their validity or suggested their replacement by an alternative set of tools. Having discussed the role of these tools in the Kitāb, we shall examine in this chapter some of Sībawayhi’s most essential analytical methods which form the backbone of his morphological and syntactical analysis. As we have seen above, Sībawayhi was interested not only in describing linguistic phenomena but also in justifying them, examining the relationships that exist among the various elements of structure, and proposing theoretical origins from which forms and patterns might have developed. To achieve this, he adopted a number of methods and strategies in dealing with linguistic data, and tried in particular to interpret anomalous usage so that he would be able to bring it in line with the norm, and to classify his data in a manner which reveals its coherence and consistency. Among the analytical methods also to be discussed in this chapter are the balance Sībawayhi tried to establish between form and meaning, the role he assigned to the speaker and the listener in the process of speech communication, his use of šāhid and mit̠āl to illustrate the phenomena under discussion, and the tools through which he checked the validity of the analytical system. We shall also examine the internal unity of the Kitāb and the consistency of its author in applying his analytical methods to related phenomena which he discusses in disparate parts of his book.

134

chapter three 2. The Preservation of “Basic Rules”

The distinction between norm and anomaly is at the heart of any attempt to describe linguistic usage and formulate rules based on a given body of data. The early realization of the importance of this distinction in the Arabic grammatical tradition is obviously linked to the vast amount of dialectal material which was admitted to the corpus by the early lexicographers and which lacked homogeneity in a large number of morphological and syntactical aspects. One of the earliest lexicographers, ʿAbdullāh b. Abī Isḥāq (d. 117/735), is reported to have been asked by Yūnus b. Ḥ abīb (d. 182/798) whether any Arab would say ṣawīq instead of sawīq (meal of parched barley). He responded by saying that this indeed occurred in the dialect of ʿAmr b. Tamīm, but strictly cautioned his young interlocutor against his interest in anomalous usage and advised him to seek grammatical phenomena which are marked by consistency and regularity (ʿalayka bi-bāb min al-naḥw yaṭtạ rid wa-yanqās).1 Another early lexicographer, Abu ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ (d. 154/770), was reportedly asked whether his corpus of ʿArabiyya included all the speech of the Arabs. When he responded in the negative, he was asked about his position vis-à-vis Arab usage which did not conform with his choice but still needed to be accounted for since the Arabs were the authoritative source (ḥ uğğa) of usage. His famous response was that he would focus on what was more frequent and treat what does not conform with it as dialects (aʿmal ʿalā l-akt̠ar wa-usammī mā ḫ ālafanī luġāt).2 Both the tendency of the naḥwiyyūn to use qiyās for analogically creating forms and constructions which may well be consistent with the theory but which do not occur in the speech of the Arabs,3 and the early interest of lexicographers in what is kat̠īr, muṭtạ rid and qiyāsī were fundamental issues which Sībawayhi had to address in the establishment of his grammatical theory. In very broad terms, his theory largely focuses on what constitutes the “norm” of usage but does not reject anomalous data if it is attested by the Arabs. What he rejects, however, is the use of qiyās either to generalize anomalies or to produce—as the naḥ wiyyūn did—forms and constructions which do not occur in actual speech. This section will discuss Sībawayhi’s 1

Ibn Sallām, Ṭabaqāt I, 15; Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 32. Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 39. 3 Cf. above, 18–20. For the difference between Sībawayhi’s own artificially created forms and those cited by the naḥwiyyūn, see below, 223. 2

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

135

views on issues which relate to norm and anomaly and particularly his recognition of the crucial role which the notion of “rule” has in grammatical analysis. Although Sībawayhi does not use a specific term to refer to the notion of “rule”, his approach to the fundamental issue of qiyās and grammatical analysis in general is largely dictated by his strong interest in what constitutes the norm in each case and his insistence that the centrality of this norm should be recognized and defended against anomalous but attested usage which undermines its applicability. Hence it is legitimate to introduce the concept of “basic rule” to refer to the usage which Sībawayhi considers to be most common and most representative of a form, pattern, particle, etc. and which, in spite of the presence of deviating material, must be recognized as the actual manifestation of accepted norm. Obviously, Sībawayhi is keen to deal with a relatively small number of “basic rules” which are considerably more manageable than a large body that would result from an indiscriminate approach which gives equal weight to the normal and the anomalous. By limiting deviation from the set of “basic rules” to the minimum dictated by attested usage, Sībawayhi affirms his respect for the speech of the Arabs yet equally professes that it is this set which should be the focus of grammatical study, and that a steadfast grammatical theory cannot but distinguish between a rule of usage arrived at by extensive induction on the one hand and aberrant material which lacks the near universal application which a rule enjoys on the other. Sībawayhi’s strategy of generalizing the norm and limiting the anomaly is manifest in those examples which present the grammarian with two distinct possibilities of interpretation, one of which agrees with the norm while the other deviates from it. We have already encountered some of these examples in our discussion of qiyās, including (1) choosing the triptote rather than the diptote as the norm for nouns of the pattern faʿāli when it is not clear whether or not they are maʿdūl and whether they are masculine or feminine; (2) proposing unayy as the diminutive of conditional in because yāʾ is more frequently elided from biliterals than wāw; and (3) the assumption that, until proven otherwise, the second radical in words of the same pattern as nāb is wāw and not yāʾ.4 The term ḥ aml ʿalā l-akt̠ar (analogical extension on the basis of the more frequent usage) is usually used in such examples

4

Kitāb III, 280, 454, 462 respectively; cf. above, 55.

136

chapter three

to express Sībawayhi’s insistence on using qiyās to boost the norm and confirm its prevalence over less widespread and hence unrepresentative usage. Even in speculative issues where suggested forms do not actually occur in speech, Sībawayhi insists on the principle of ḥ aml ʿalā l-akt̠ar. He argues, for example, that if one were to call a man by a name of the pattern fuʿāl, such as ğulāl, then ağilla and ğillān would be that name’s plural of paucity and abundance respectively because this is the norm in most words of the pattern fuʿāl, and qiyās should be modeled on what is more frequent ( fa-ʿalayhi taqīs ʿalā l-akt̠ar).5 Furthermore, there are a few examples in which Sībawayhi expresses in clear terms his bias towards what is more frequently attested and hence to be considered the norm. The following two examples, the first of which syntactical and the other morphological, are among the most telling instances of this type: 1. In discussing the pronouns after lawlā, Sībawayhi notes that the qiyās is to use independent pronouns of the nominative case, hence lawlā anta and lawlā antum, but that it is also possible to use the dependent pronouns, as in lawlāya and lawlāka.6 The latter forms are problematic because lawlā is normally followed by the nominative (i.e. mubtadaʾ) and hence the independent pronouns anā, anta, etc. are expected to occur. Short of rejecting these well-attested forms, Sībawayhi is left with two possibilities to justify them: either to accept that lawlā may be followed by the genitive in the case of pronouns, or to admit that the pronominal suffixes of the genitive can replace those of the nominative after lawlā. Obviously, the first solution is an easier option because it would only contradict the norm that pertains to one particle, lawlā,7 whereas the second option would contradict the widespread distinction between nominative/independent and genitive/suffixed pronouns, and its impact would potentially affect other forms and constructions in which suffixed or independent pronouns are used. Similarly, in ʿasā, which Sībawayhī brings into the discussion of lawlā and which is followed by accusative suffixed

5

Ibid., III, 404. Ibid., II, 373–376. 7 Some later sources list lawlā under prepositions based on Sībawayhi’s interpretation (cf. Mālaqī, Raṣf 295–296; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 302–3; Suyūṭī, Hamʿ II, 33). 6

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

137

pronouns,8 he avoids disturbing the distinction between nominative/ independent and accusative/suffixed pronouns and admits an anomalous occurrence of the accusative after ʿasā. That certain particles do exhibit anomalies is supported, according to Sībawayhi, by the expression ladun ġudwatan in which the accusative is used instead of the expected genitive and by the fact that lāta, unlike its sister laysa, can govern only nouns which signify time (aḥyān; i.e. nouns of temporal signification). Based on his interpretation of lawlā and ʿasā, Sībawayhi criticizes the claim of some people (nās) that the suffixed pronouns in lawlāya and ʿasānī are nominative and that the first agrees with the genitive pronoun and the second with the accusative pronoun.9 He unequivocally expresses his disapproval of this flawed interpretation (wağh radīʾ) because one should not breach the regularity of a certain usage as long as one is able to find parallels, even if remote, capable of explaining an anomalous example which threatens that regularity (wa-li-annaka lā yanbaġī laka an taksir al-bāb wa-huwa muṭtạ rid wa-anta tağid lahu naẓāʾir wa-qad yuwağğah al-šayʾ ʿalā l-šayʾ al-baʿīd id̠ā lam yūğad ġayruhu).10 The adoption by Sībawayhi of this strategy allows him both to accept attested usage—contrary to the grammarians who reject it, as in the case of lawlāya and lawlāka11—and to defend the regularity of usage whenever the “basic rule” at hand is threatened by anomalous data. 2. Sībawayhi reports the difference between Ḫ alīl and others (ġayruhu) concerning the pattern to which sayyid belongs and sides with his teacher who considers it to be of the pattern fayʿil, rather than fayʿal.12

Note that in the case of ʿasāka, ʿasākumā, etc. the suffixed pronouns are interpreted by Sībawayhi as accusative and not genitive because the equivalent form for the first person is ʿasānī and not *ʿasāya (i.e. the nūn in ʿasānī indicates the accusative). Also note that later grammarians usually justify the occurrence of the accusative suffixed pronoun after ʿasā on the basis of its analogy to laʿalla to which accusative pronouns are suffixed, as in laʿallaka, laʿallakumā, etc. (cf. Fārisī, Šiʿr II, 494; Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna V, 363). 9 Cf. masʾala 97 in Ibn al-Anbārī’s Inṣāf (II, 687–695) where the Basrans and Kufans are reported to have differed on the interpretation of the suffixed pronouns in lawlāya, lawlāka, etc. The position attributed by Ibn al-Anbārī to the Basrans is in line with that of Sībawayhi’s, and there is evidence in the primary sources to support the views attributed to Farrāʾ, Mubarrad and Aḫfaš as well (cf. Farrāʾ, Maʿānī II, 85; Mubarrad, Kāmil III, 345 and Muqtaḍab III, 73). 10 Kitāb II, 376. 11 Mubarrad, for example, strongly argues against the various interpretations of lawlāya and lawlāka suggested by Sībawayhi and others; cf. below, 238. 12 Kitāb IV, 365–366; cf. Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ X, 95. 8

138

chapter three

In justifying his support of Ḫ alīl’s view, Sībawayhi asserts, as a general principle, that one should not interpret a word on the basis of what is anomalous and irregular if one finds the means to classify it with the pattern which is most representative of its group, in this case the pattern fayʿil (wa-lā taḥ milhu ʿalā l-šād̠d̠ allad̠ī lā yaṭtạ rid fa-qad wağadta sabīlan ilā an yakūn fayʿil). Since fayʿil in this case symbolizes uniformity of usage, then the interpretation of sayyid should contribute to the norm rather than undermine it. Likewise, when a word cannot be ascribed to a recognized pattern, Sībawayhi applies qiyās and ascribes it to the closest available pattern. Šağawğā (magpie), for example, should be considered to be of the pattern faʿawʿal since the pattern faʿawlā is inexistent.13 The application of qiyās to ascribe anomalous words to established patterns, as we shall see in 3 below, is a frequent practice which Sībawayhi resorts to as part of the process of ilḥ āq which also aims at maximizing the applicability of the norm and minimizing deviations from it. Although Sībawayhi’s defense of “basic rules” characterizes his approach to grammatical analysis throughout the Kitāb, its effect is more farreaching in certain areas than in others. We shall therefore focus in the rest of this section on three such areas—namely, function of particles, syntactical order and morphological patterns—as being among the most representative of the notion of “basic rule” and the manner in which it is related to some of the major issues of grammatical study: 1. Function of particles:14 There is a strong affinity between Sībawayhi’s notion of “basic rule” and the function of certain particles. Perhaps the clearest example of this affinity is that of the conjunctions fāʾ, wāw and aw. Obviously, the “basic” and most widely attested usage, hence qiyās of these particles, is conjoining two or more elements of a construction, i.e. ʿaṭf. As we noted earlier,15 one of the reasons for the restoration of an before the subjunctive in the model sentence lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī is to confirm the function of ʿaṭf which is the

13

Kitāb IV, 311. The term particle is used here in a general sense which includes what the grammarians identify as particles (e.g. the conjunction fāʾ and the conditional particle in) as well as those “particles” which they classify as verbs (e.g. laysa) or nouns (e.g. mā which is the sister of laysa, and conditional man). 15 Cf. above, 77–78. 14

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

139

qiyās in the case of fāʾ. By explaining that this construction may be theoretically paraphrased as laysa yakūnu minka ityānun fa-ḥ adīt̠un, Sībawayhi actually defends the qiyās of fāʾ based on the equivalence between an tuḥ addit̠anī and ḥ adīt̠ since the latter is supposedly conjoined to another verbal noun, ityān. A similar explanation is also given in the case of wāw (as in iʾtinī wa-ātiyaka which is said to have the meaning of li-yakun ityānun minka wa-an ātiyaka/wa-ityānun minnī)16 and aw (as in la-alzamannaka aw tuʿṭiyanī whose meaning is explained as la-yakūnanna l-luzūmu aw an tuʿṭiyanī, i.e. aw iʿṭāʾun).17 The most obvious alternative of this interpretation would be to ascribe the subjunctive to fāʾ, wāw and aw. Not only would this choice undermine the “basic” usage of these particles, but it would also shatter the principle of iḫtiṣāṣ (which is an essential condition for ʿamal according to Sībawayhi)18 since conjunctions are classified as non-ʿāmil because they may precede nouns as well as verbs. Unlike these three conjunctions, li- and ḥ attā are classified as “specialized” particles because they only precede nouns and thus cause the genitive. But in spite of this difference, Sībawayhi applies the same technique as the one used with the conjunctions in order to prove that these two particles preserve their “basic” function as prepositions. In this case, the introduction of an is not intended to deny the ability of li- and ḥ attā to govern—as in the case of “specialized” conjunctions—but to ascribe the subjunctive to an and hence dismiss the possibility of ascribing it to either of the two particles. Thus, in ğiʾtuka li-taf ʿala the restoration of an is meant to justify the subjunctive and at the same time introduce a verbal noun which would be the genitive governed by li-. In other words, li-taf ʿala is interpreted as * li-an taf ʿala which in turn is equivalent to li-fiʿlika.19 Similarly, an is introduced before the verb in ḥ attā constructions of the type sirtu ḥ attā adḫulahā20 to account for the subjunctive and at the same time cause the verb to have the status of a noun (i.e. duḫūl) which ḥ attā governs. Sībawayhi’s keenness to preserve the “basic” function of particles and to deny as much as possible the existence of other functions under

16 17 18 19 20

Ibid., III, 44. Ibid., III, 46. Cf. above, 71, 94. Ibid., III, 6. Ibid., III, 17, 41.

140

chapter three

certain circumstances—such as the function of governing the subjunctive in addition to the function of ʿaṭf in the case of fāʾ, wāw and aw—is largely reflected in the Basran tradition as Basran grammarians generally follow his method in their analysis of particles, especially at the semantic level. This Basran tendency is evident in at least seven of Ibn al-Anbārī’s (d. 577/1181) masāʾil or issues of controversy between the Basrans and the Kufans. In all seven issues, it is the Basrans who are reported to defend the “basic” function or meaning of the particle under discussion, whereas the Kufans seem to be more permissive because they do acknowledge that such particles may have functions or meanings other than the normal or widely attested ones. The seven controversial issues are the following: a. The Basrans do not admit that illā can have the meaning of wāw, contrary to the Kufans who cite constructions such as li-allā yakūna li-l-nāsi ʿalaykum ḥ uğğatun illā llad̠īna ẓalamū minhum (“That there be no ground of dispute against you among the people, except those that are bent on wickedness”; Q 2: 150), which is interpreted as wa-llad̠īna ẓalamū.21 b. The Basrans insist that min may only be used to denote commencement in time, whereas the Kufans accept that it also denotes commencement in place, as in the verse la-masğidun ussisa ʿalā l-taqwā min awwali yawmin aḥ aqqu an taqūma fīhi (“There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of thy standing forth for prayer therein”; Q 9: 108).22 c. The Basrans do not accept that aw can have the meaning of wāw or bal, whereas the Kufans quote, among other šawāhid, the verse wa-arsalnāhu ilā miʾati alfin aw yazīdūna (“and We sent him to a hundred thousand men or more”; Q 37: 147) which they claim is equivalent in meaning to wa-yazīdūna or bal yazīdūna.23 d. The Basrans dismiss the possibility that kāna can have the meaning of kaymā and thus govern the subjunctive, contrary to the Kufans (and Mubarrad, a Basran) who are reported to allow this

Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf I, 266 ff.; but cf. Farrāʾ’s position in Maʿānī I, 89; II, 287. Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf I, 370 ff. Note Sībawayhi’s expression wa-ammā min fa-takūn li-btidāʾ al-ġāya fī l-amākin (Kitāb IV, 224). 23 Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf II, 478 ff.; cf. Farrāʾ, Maʿānī II, 293; Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 304; Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ II, 461. 21 22

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

141

usage based on several šawāhid, such as lā taẓlimū l-nāsa kamā lā tuẓlamū (“Do not treat people unjustly lest you be so treated”).24 e. The Basrans do not admit that conditional in can have the meaning of id̠, whereas the Kufans quote several Qurʾānic verses and lines of poetry in which in is apparently equivalent in meaning to id̠, as in wa-in kuntum fī raybin mimmā nazzalnā ʿalā ʿabdinā (“and if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to Our servant”; Q 2: 23).25 f. The Basrans deny the possibility that the interrogative particle kayfa may be used as a conditional particle, as in kayfa takun akun, unlike the Kufans who defend the permissibility of such usage.26 g. The Basrans do not accept the Kufan argument that hād̠ā and other demonstrative pronouns may be used as relative pronouns and dismiss the šawāhid adduced by the Kufans in support of their claim.27 2. Syntactical order: Other than the semantic component of particle usage discussed above, Sībawayhi is keen to identify a characteristic syntactical order with which particles are associated and to interpret data that apparently do not conform to that order, with the aim of bringing them in line with the norm. The notion of plasticity (taṣarruf ) discussed at the end of Chapter Two shows how Sībawayhi considers freedom of word order as a sign of quwwa according to which particles may be classified. In the case of mā, for example, the order of particle + subject + predicate is a condition for mā to be analogous to laysa in government, and thus mā is said to be inferior to laysa in quwwa. Furthermore, the permissibility or otherwise of

24 Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf II, 585 ff.; cf. Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna VIII, 500. Note that Sībawayhi (Kitāb III, 116) reports Ḫ alīl’s view on the inability of kamā to govern the subjunctive and quotes a similar šāhid in which the verb after it is in the indicative: lā taštumi l-nāsa kamā lā tuštamu (“Do not curse people lest you be so cursed”; note that tuštamu is second person masculine singular). 25 Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf II, 632 ff.; cf. Farrāʾ, Maʿānī III, 27 (quoted also by Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna IX, 79–80) where an, and not in, is equated in meaning to id̠, as in a-asubbuka an ḥ aramtanī. 26 Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf II, 643 ff. The Basrans also reject the use of the interrogative particles as conjoining particles, whereas the Kufans allow this in ayna, kayfa, alā and halā; see Sīrāfī’s comment in Kitāb’s margin I, 441 (= I, 219 in the Būlāq edition). 27 Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf II, 717 ff. The earliest reference to this Kufan position is found in Farrāʾ, Maʿānī II, 177; cf. Ibn al-Šağarī, Amālī II, 170–171 and Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ II, 16.

142

chapter three

several constructions is interpreted in light of the particle’s relative ability to occur in a particular word order (cf. the permissibility of qāʾiman kāna Zaydun and qāʾiman laysa Zaydun and the impermissibility of *qāʾiman mā Zaydun). The case of conditional constructions is particularly interesting from the perspective of syntactical order. Much of the material related to this subject in the Kitāb is part of a more general discussion in which Sībawayhi tries over several chapters to demonstrate the “deep structure” of certain constructions by restoring an assumed verb which is not normally uttered (cf. the expression iḍmār al-fiʿl al-matrūk iẓhāruhu).28 Two of the “basic rules” pertaining to conditional constructions as described by Sībawayhi and other grammarians are succinctly formulated by Ibn Mālik’s (d. 672/1274) description of these constructions as fiʿlayni yaqtaḍīna: šartun quddimā * yatlū l-ğazāʾu wa-ğawāban wusimā.29 Thus, both the fiʿl (protasis) and the ğawāb (apodosis) should be verbs (or equivalent to a verb in the case of ğawāb which begins with fāʾ as we shall see later), and they should occur in that order. Several issues which Sībawayhi raises in his analysis of conditional constructions are related to the pattern of word order which he identifies as characteristic of these constructions. In order to facilitate the discussion of these issues, we shall separately list the most important ones among them and examine his position vis-à-vis their conformity to the “basic rules” of word order in conditional constructions wherever applicable: a. The “model” order, so to speak, is particle + protasis (verb) + apodosis (verb), where the particle governs the protasis, and the apodosis is governed by what precedes it (i.e. the particle and the protasis, as Ḫ alīl explains). Sībawayhi’s expression wa-ʿlam anna ḥ urūf al-ğazāʾ tağzim al-af ʿāl wa-yanğazim al-ğawāb bi-mā qablahu30 sets that “model” order, and it is implied that the particle takes precedence in this order as do interrogative particles whose affinity to conditional particles is highlighted by Sībawayhi.31 28

Cf. the chapters referred to above in Kitāb II, 253–361. Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 494; Ušmūnī, Šarḥ III, 584. 30 Kitāb III, 62. 31 Ibid., III, 59. Note that whereas the naḥwiyyūn allow all conditional particles to be used in an interrogative sense, Sībawayhi acknowledges the close affinity between ğazāʾ and istifhām—particularly because the verb which follows conditional as well as interrogative particles is not a ṣila (complement) of what precedes it—but refutes the 29

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

143

b. Based on his assertion that conditional particles should be followed by verbs, Sībawayhi uniformly interprets constructions in which the particle is not followed by an uttered verb in a manner which preserves the “model” syntactical pattern, that is by introducing the supposedly elided verb. In most of his illustrative examples, he uses the conditional particle in, which, by virtue of being umm ḥ urūf al-ğazāʾ,32 is representative of other conditional particles as well. The following two statements (both of which cite in) deal with the structure of conditional constructions and their syntactical order, and are most essential for understanding Sībawayhi’s position: (1) that there can be no accusative or nominative after in without the presence or assumption of a verb (wa-ʿlam annahu lā yantaṣib šayʾ baʿda in wa-lā yartafiʿ illā bi-fiʿl) and (2) that in is one of the particles which have to be followed by a verb (li-anna in min al-ḥ urūf allatī yubnā ʿalayhā l-fiʿl wahiya umm al-muğāzāt).33 The logical consequence of these two complementary axioms is that any proposal of the “deep structure” of constructions in which in is followed by a noun should take into consideration the introduction of a verb immediately after in. In fact, Sībawayhi believes that in the case of the genitive as well, a verb has to be assumed. Consequently, the following constructions are cited and their “deep structure” suggested in the discussion:34 ʿindanā ayyuhum afḍalu in Zaydan wa-in ʿAmran ʿindanā ayyuhum afḍalu in kāna Zaydan wa-in kāna ʿAmran ʿindanā ayyuhum afḍalu in Zaydun wa-in ʿAmrun ʿindanā ayyuhum afḍalu in kāna ʿindanā Zaydun aw kāna ʿindanā ʿAmrun umrur ʿalā ayyuhum afḍalu in Zaydin wa-in ʿAmrin umrur ʿalā ayyuhum afḍalu in mararta bi-Zaydin aw mararta bi-ʿAmrin

The introduction of a verb (kāna and marartu bi- in the above examples) restores the “basic” pattern of conditional sentences as Sībawayhi

claim of the naḥwiyyūn by arguing that the conditional particles in, ḥ ayt̠umā and id̠mā cannot be used in an interrogative context. 32 Ibid., III, 63; cf. above, 127. 33 Ibid., I, 263. 34 Ibid., I, 263–264.

144

chapter three

defines it and at the same time accounts for the accusative, nominative and genitive in each example. In the first example Zaydan becomes the predicate of kāna, and in the second Zaydun becomes its subject. As for the third example, the verb to be introduced has to be accompanied by a preposition which accounts for the genitive in Zaydin. Also in poetic license, a construction like in Zaydun yaʾtika yakun kad̠ā, the protasis is said to be an elided verb determined by the construction, hence yaʾtika, and Zaydun becomes the subject of that verb.35 That other conditional particles are also subject to such interpretation is clear in Sībawayhi’s assertion that law has the same status (manzila) as in because it can only be followed by a verb and because the occurrence of a noun after it signifies that the expected verb has been elided. Hence the two constructions a-lā ṭaʿāma wa-law tamran and a-lā ṭaʿāma wa-law tamrun are interpreted as a-lā ṭaʿāma wa-law kāna tamran and a-lā ṭaʿāma wa-law yakūnu ʿindanā tamrun/wa-law saqaṭa ilaynā tamrun.36 It should also be noted that Sībawayhi supports his taqdīr of verbs in conditional constructions by the fact that the verb may indeed be uttered rather than suppressed, as in the construction al-marʾu maqtūlun bi-mā qatala bihi in ḫinğaran fa-ḫinğarun wa-in sayfan fa-sayfun which may well be uttered with kāna, hence in kāna ḫinğaran fa-ḫinğarun wa-in kāna sayfan fa-sayfun.37 In other words, the proposed “deep structure” is not tamt̠īl (representation, approximation) which does not occur in speech—as in the case of *laysa yakūnu minka ityānun fa-ḥ adīt̠un, the tamt̠īl of lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī—but a reconstruction which includes the supposedly elided elements. c. The protasis has to be formally in the jussive (i.e. when apocopation results for example in taf ʿalu becoming taf ʿal) in order for the apodosis to be in the jussive as well. In other words, if in causes the imperfect verb which is its protasis to be in the jussive, then the apodosis should also be in the jussive (lam yaḥ sun illā an yakūn lahā ğawāb yanğazim bi-mā qablahu),38 as in wa-illā taġfir lī wa-tarḥ amnī akun min al-ḫ āsirīna (“and unless Thou forgive

35 Ibid., III, 113–114. Note that were Zaydun considered the subject of a nominal sentence (i.e. mubtadaʾ), the protasis would no longer be a verb and that would contradict the norm. 36 Ibid., I, 269. 37 Ibid., I, 258. 38 Ibid., III, 66.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

145

me and have mercy on me, I should indeed be lost”; Q 11: 47). Sībawayhi realizes that this axiom is incompatible with attested constructions of the type in ataytanī ātika (in which the apodosis is in the jussive although the protasis is not) and that these have to be interpreted in order to prove their conformity to the norm and thus dismiss a case of anomalous usage. He therefore resorts to qiyās and considers ataytanī to be in the position (mawḍiʿ ) of a jussive verb, as if the speaker means to say in taf ʿal af ʿal. As for constructions of the type in ataytanī ātīka where neither verb is in the jussive, Sībawayhi inverts the order in the “deep structure” which then becomes ātīka in ataytanī, an attested construction according to him. The apodosis in this case is suppressed because it is not a jussive verb governed by what precedes it in the construction (wa-lam tağʿal li-in ğawāban yanğazim bi-mā qablahu). It is implied, of course, that the conditional construction ātika in ataytanī is complete in spite of the absence of the apodosis since this is semantically replaced by the uttered verb ātīka which itself cannot be the apodosis because of its syntactical position before in. d. Constructions like in taʾtinī la-af ʿalanna and la-in taf ʿal la-afʿalanna are criticized by Ḫ alīl because la-af ʿalanna, which indicates oath, deserves to be placed in the beginning of the construction (min qibali anna la-af ʿalanna tağīʾ mubtadaʾatan; li-anna la-af ʿalanna ʿalā awwal al-kalām).39 Ḫ alīl’s view, which seems to be approved by Sībawayhi, is based not only on the incompatibility of such utterances with the norm of word order but also on the rules of regimen in conditional constructions, namely, that when the protasis is formally in the jussive (i.e. governed by in; cf. “a” above), the apodosis should also be in the jussive (i.e. governed by in and the protasis). According to Sībawayhi, it is “ugly” in speech (qabuḥ a fī l-kalām) that in or any other conditional particle should formally cause a change in its protasis without causing the apodosis to be in the jussive as well. He argues that the parallel construction in ataytanī la-ukrimannaka is acceptable because the protasis which is in the past tense does not have a formal mark of the jussive although it is in the grammatical position of a jussive verb. Obviously, the fact that qubḥ “beauty” or lack of ḥ usn (“ugliness”; cf.

39

Ibid., III, 65–66.

146

chapter three

lā yaḥ sun fī l-kalām) is associated with in taʾtinī la-af ʿalanna but not with in ataytanī la-ukrimannaka stems from the realization that it is the first and not the second construction which is not in line with the “basic rules” of conditional sentences, and although Sībawayhi stops short of rejecting the first construction, he puts its ḥ usn into question in order to preserve the norms of usage and not to generalize what is inharmonious with them. e. As mentioned earlier, both the protasis and the apodosis are normally verbs in a “model” conditional construction. In the case of a protasis which is presumed to be elided (e.g. in Zaydan wa-in ʿAmran; cf. “b” above), the assumption of a verb restores normalcy to the construction. Similarly, the function of apodosis in actual speech is not always performed by a verb. Sībawayhi acknowledges this fact by a general statement which restricts the position of apodosis to verbs and phrases introduced by fāʾ (wa-ʿlam annahu lā yakūn ğawāb al-ğazāʾ illā bi-fiʿl aw bi-l-fāʾ).40 There are, of course, constructions in which the fāʾ precedes the verb which acts as apodosis, and Sībawayhi mentions a few examples of this type such as wa-man ʿāda fa-yantaqimu l-Lāhu minhu (“For repetition God will exact from him the penalty”; Q 5: 95) and fa-man yuʾmin bi-rabbihi fa-lā yaḫ āfu baḫ san wa-lā rahaqā (“and any who believes in his Lord has no fear, either of a short account or of any injustice”; Q 72: 13).41 But it is not these constructions that Sībawayhi is interested in interpreting because, by virtue of having a verb as their apodosis, they are not inharmonious with the norm. Rather, Sībawayhi has in mind constructions in which the fāʾ is followed by a nominal sentence as in in taʾtinī fa-anā ṣāḥ ibuka. He resolves the issue by arguing that what follows the fāʾ is equivalent to a verb, or more precisely has the position (mawḍiʿ ) of a verb.42 This virtually restores the applicability of the norm, as does the analogical extension of the use of fāʾ before the apodosis to id̠ā and am, due to their syntactical similarity of being related to what precedes them in the construction since they cannot be used in the beginning of kalām.43 It is

40

Ibid., III, 63. Ibid., III, 69. 42 Ibid., III, 63–64. 43 For example, in the Qurʾānic verse wa-in tuṣibhum sayyiʾatun bi-mā qaddamat aydīhim id̠ā hum yaqnaṭūna (“and when some evil afflicts them because of what their 41

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

147

interesting to note that Sībawayhi’s previously quoted statement on the apodosis being a verb or a phrase introduced by fāʾ makes no mention of other particles which can replace the fāʾ. Mention of such particles unfolds only in the ensuing discussions where analogy is used to expand on a concise and restrictive statement which represents the “basic rule” of usage and which can be made a point of reference concerning the issue under discussion. f. A further observation by Sībawayhi also points in the direction of the norm in conditional constructions: neither the protasis nor the apodosis can govern a preceding element. In the construction a-ʿAbdullāhi in tara taḍrib, the use of the nominative in ʿAbdullāhi, according to Sībawayhi, is due to the inability of either verb to govern it as its direct object ( fa-laysa li-l-āḫir sabīl ilā l-ism . . . wa-laysa li-l-fiʿl al-awwal sabīl).44 It may be suggested here that Sībawayhi regards the three main constituents of the conditional construction (i.e. particle + protasis + apodosis) as a “self-contained” unit which cannot be interrupted and believes that the interrelatedness of these constituents in word order and government excludes the intrusion of other parts that might be introduced to the construction as this would disturb what relationships exist among its original constituents. 3. Morphological patterns: Sībawayhi’s interest in limiting deviations from the recognized norm has a considerable effect on his morphological analysis and particularly on his approach to word patterns. In syntactical issues he is keen to identify the most universally applicable “basic rules” which represent the norm and which he tries as much as possible not to burden with anomalies and exceptions. Similarly, his foremost concern in the analysis of forms is to identify the “basic” patterns which the theory should explain and at the same time interpret apparently deviating patterns in a manner which ensures that the norm is not undermined. In this respect, ilḥ āq (appending) is by far the most important technique which Sībawayhi applies in order to limit the enormous number of Arabic word patterns to a “manageable” set which includes only the “basic” ones, and to consider the less frequent or apparently anomalous ones as modified versions of own hands have set forth, behold, they are in despair”; Q 30: 36), the nominal sentence hum yaqnaṭūna is said to have the mawḍiʿ of qanaṭū and hence a verbal trait is ascribed to the apodosis. 44 Kitāb I, 132; cf. I, 135.

148

chapter three

the main patterns to which they are made to belong. Realizing the huge potential of this technique in morphological analysis, Sībawayhi widely employs it not only to reduce the number of recognized patterns, but also as an organizational tool through which rarely attested forms become part of the norm, and major patterns embrace minor ones rather than contradict them. Most of the Kitāb’s material on ilḥ āq appears in several scattered chapters,45 and although Sībawayhi nowhere gives a formal description of the term or formulates and lists together the rules that pertain to it, his discussion includes all the elements later grammarians use in formulating its definition. These elements are the following:46 (1) that it is a ziyāda; (2) that it causes triliterals to be appended to quadriliterals and quinqueliterals, and quadriliterals to be appended to quinqueliterals; (3) that this ziyāda is different from the one which uniformly introduces an element of meaning (e.g. n in the reflexive pattern infaʿala); (4) that the pattern of the appended word should phonologically conform to the pattern of the word to which it is appended, i.e. what can be referred to as the target pattern; (5) that the derivatives of the appended word should be congruent with the derivatives of the target word; and (6) that the rules of idġām (assimilation, gemination), if applicable, should not be made operational in the appended word because this would change its pattern and hence its congruence with the word to which it is appended. Sībawayhi distinguishes between two types of ziyāda: a purely morphological ziyāda which introduces an element of meaning, and a ziyāda which allows certain word patterns to be appended (yulḥ aq) to others by identifying the consonants or semi-vowels which are affixes and not radicals in appended words (e.g. y in ḍayġam and w in ḫirwaʿ which are appended to quadriliterals such as ğaʿfar and dirham respectively). This distinction is the backbone of the concept of ilḥ āq not only in the Kitāb but throughout the grammatical tradition. Sībawayhi supports the distinction between these two types of ziyāda by examining the applicability of idġām to them and devotes a chapter to those appended words whose final radicals are reduplicated but not

45 46

See, in particular, Kitāb III, 210–219, 613; IV, 286–303, 424–430. Cf. Baalbaki (2001–2002: 3–4).

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

149

geminated.47 He contrasts qardad, which is appended to the likes of ğaʿfar and salhab, with maradd, originally *mardad, and attributes the lack of idġām to ilḥ āq itself. According to their phonological structure, both qardad and *mardad qualify for idġām, but Sībawayhi intends to prove that idġām does not occur in appended words because the speaker intentionally keeps the last two radicals separate in order to achieve ilḥ āq through the augment. This is also true of appended verbs whose last two radicals defy idġām due to ilḥ āq (wa-id̠ā ḍāʿafta l-lām wa-kāna fiʿlan mulḥ aqan bi-banāt al-arbaʿa lam tudġim li-annaka innamā aradta an tuḍāʿif li-tulḥ iqahu bi-mā zidta bi-daḥrağtu wa-ğaḥ daltu). Thus, the lack of idġām in ğalbaba and its derivatives ğalbabtuhu, muğalbab, ğulbiba, tağalbaba, yatağalbabu etc. is intended by the speaker in order to allow these words to be appended to their counterparts from daḥ rağa, etc. such as tadaḥ rağa, yatadaḥ rağu and daḥ rağtu.48 The above distinction between the ziyāda of maʿnā and the ziyāda of ilḥ āq both at the level of meaning (since a change of meaning occurs only in the former) and form (since the expected rules of idġām are not operational in the latter) is an essential step for Sībawayhi to consider ilḥ āq as a morphological phenomenon which deserves study in its own right. Although word formation is primarily achieved through derivation (ištiqāq) in which augments by definition introduce an element of meaning, ilḥ āq according to Sībawayhi is a parallel process which can explain a large number of words whose augments make them congruent, in their number of radicals and metric measure (wazn), to other words. The phonemes used in the process of ilḥ āq are mostly wāw and yāʾ (cf. ḍayġam and ḫirwaʿ mentioned above), but also include, among others, nūn (as in raʿšan), mīm (as in dilqim), and alif maqṣūra (as in ʿilqā). In addition to these frequently used phonemes, any given phoneme may, theoretically, recur in a word to cause it to be appended to another word (as in mahdad, ʿat̠awt̠al, ḥ alakūk, ʿafanğağ, ḍafandad, etc.). Based on this conception of augmented phonemes which cause ilḥ āq, the vast majority of the corpus of appended words in the Kitāb—as well as in the

47 Kitāb IV, 424–426 (cf. IV, 439); see also Baalbaki (2001–2002: 9–10). The phonological reasons for idġām or lack thereof in the two types of ziyāda are discussed by Bohas and Guillaume (1984: 39–41, 110–113). 48 Kitāb IV, 425; cf. Fārisī, Taʿlīqa V, 156–157; Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab I, 204–205, 244.

150

chapter three

whole tradition which is largely dependent on it in this respect—may be divided into the following five types:49 a. Triliterals appended to quadriliterals: e.g. ğadwal (ğdl), compared with ğaʿfar (ğʿfr); and duḫ lul (dḫ l), compared with ḥ ubruğ (ḥ brğ). b. Triliterals appended to augmented quadriliterals: e.g. dulāmiṣ (dlṣ), compared with ğuḫ ādib (ğḫ db); and ḫ abawnan (ḫbn), compared with ḥ abawkar (ḥ bkr). c. Triliterals appended to quinqueliterals: e.g. inqaḥ l (qḥ l), compared with qirṭaʿb (qrṭʿb); and ḥ abarbar (ḥ br), compared with farazdaq ( frzdq). d. Quadriliterals appended to quinqueliterals: e.g. qiršabb (qršb), compared with qirṭaʿb (qrṭʿb); and ğaḥ anfal (ğḥ fl ), compared with safarğal (sfrğl). e. Quadriliterals appended to augmented quinqueliterals: e.g. qušaʿrīra (qšʿr), compared with ḫuzaʿbīla (ḫ zʿbl); and ḫ aysafūğ (ḫ sfğ), compared with ʿaḍrafūṭ (ʿḍrfṭ). The analytical advantages which this grouping provides are enormous, most notably from the following perspectives: a. It considerably reduces the number of morphological patterns which the grammarian has to account for. In other words, several patterns which are augmented by w, y, n, etc. or by the recurrence of one of their consonants are considered modified versions of a major pattern that is free from augmentation or recurrence of a consonant. Thus, by appending ḥ awqal, zaynab, ğadwal, mahdad, ʿalqā, raʿšan and ʿansal to ğaʿfar,50 the patterns fawʿal, fayʿal, faʿwal, faʿlal (reduplicated), faʿlā, faʿlan and fanʿal are subsumed under one major pattern: faʿlal (without reduplication). b. It allows the formulation of rules applicable not only to words that represent the major pattern (e.g. ğaʿfar in “a” above), but 49 All examples of appended words cited in the above list occur in the sections which deal with ilḥ āq in the Kitāb. These same examples are also cited in later general sources on grammar—such as Mubarrad’s Muqtaḍab (esp. I, 204–205, 244; II, 225 ff.; III, 88, 385–386; IV, 3–4) and Ibn al-Sarrāğ’s Uṣūl (III, 181–222)—as well as in works that are devoted to morphology—such as Māzinī’s Taṣrīf (I, 34–53) and Astarābād̠ī’s Šarḥ al-Šāfiya (I, 52–70). See further examples in Baalbaki (2001–2002: 6 ff.). 50 Kitāb IV, 288.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

151

also to all words whose patterns are appended to it (e.g. ḥ awqal, zaynab, ğadwal, etc. in “a” above). For example, he observes that all triliterals that are augmented to become quadriliterals and are appended to genuine quadriliterals have, like those quadriliterals, broken plurals of the pattern mafāʿil, such as ğadwal, ʿit̠yar, kawkab, tawlab, sullam, dummal, ğundab and qardad, whose plurals are ğadāwil, ʿat̠āyir, kawākib, tawālib, salālim, damāmil, ğanādib and qarādid respectively.51 c. It enables the grammarian to limit deviations from the norm and maximize the applicability of grammatical rules. Since the number of nominal or verbal patterns is regarded as a closed set, it follows that this set cannot be enlarged by the addition of patterns—particularly rare ones—representing words which are augmented by zawāʾid and which may be appended to their closest counterparts within the closed set. It is important to note that the patterns of a large number of appended words are very rare indeed and that some of them are even solitary examples. These, nevertheless, become harmonious with the norm when they are appended to major patterns and thus considered not to be anomalous. A good example is the word hammariš (adjective for a very old and wrinkled woman; e.g. ʿağūz hammariš) which is of the pattern faʿʿalil described by Sībawayhi as rare (qalīl),52 and which may be the only quadriliteral of this pattern. 53 By appending this pattern to quinqueliterals such as qahbalis, ğaḥmariš and ṣahṣaliq,54 it becomes part of a larger entity and consequently harmonious with the norm. Other rarely cited examples include ʿafanğağ, qinfaḫr, ʿillawd, izmawl and qafaʿdad which are appended to words like ḥ azanbal, ğirdaḥ l, hiršaff, qirṭaʿb and safarğal respectively.55

51 Ibid., III, 613 (note that Sībawayhi refers to the pattern of these words as mafāʿil only to indicate their wazn, since none of them begins with a mīm); cf. Fārisī, Taʿlīqa IV, 95 and see other examples in ʿUḍayma (1975: 364–72). 52 Kitāb IV, 298. Sībawayhi also refers to hammariš on two other occasions and interprets it as being of the pattern faʿlalil in the first (IV, 302) and of the pattern fanʿalil in the second (IV, 330). Cf. Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān (HMRŠ) where Sībawayhi’s indecisiveness in determining the pattern of hammariš is mentioned. 53 Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān (HMRŠ). 54 Kitāb IV, 302. 55 Ibid., IV, 297–302. For other rare words and patterns, see Zubaydī, Amt̠ila, Ğawālīqī, Muḫtaṣar and Ibn al-Dahhān, Šarḥ .

152

chapter three

Another technique Sībawayhi uses with regard to limiting deviation from the norm by the use of ilḥ āq may be exemplified by his treatment of the words qīqāʾ and zīzāʾ. Based on his distinction between ism (noun) and maṣdar (verbal noun) in the study of ilḥ āq, these two words are problematic because the pattern to which they should be ideally appended—the reduplicated biliteral of fiʿlāl, i.e. fiʿfāʿ, such as qilqāl—is used exclusively with maṣdars.56 To avoid this anomaly which would disturb the distinction between ism and maṣdar, Sībawayhi appends qīqāʾ and zīzāʾ to the nearest hamzated and unreduplicated fiʿlāl pattern (i.e. fiʿlāʾ) that does occur with isms, and chooses ʿilbāʾ to illustrate it. Later authors have also adopted this strategy of appending words to the nearest available patterns if an exact counterpart is not found.57 In a broader context, Sībawayhi’s attempt to preserve what we have called “basic rules” may be seen as part of his effort to organize his linguistic data in a manner which maximizes the applicability of the norm and relieves the analytical system from dealing with anomalous material wherever possible. Whether the matter under discussion is the use of fāʾ, wāw and aw, or the part of speech which follows conditional in, or the pattern to which ḥ awqal, ğadwal and mahdad belong, Sībawayhi tries to interpret the data by integrating into the norm what apparently conflicts with it. This ensures both that aberrant material derived through samāʿ is admitted into the corpus and that it does not undermine the norm which has to be preserved, particularly by steering clear of using irregular forms, utterances, etc. to generate parallels through qiyās. Earlier allusions to the concept of “basic rules” in light of our discussion of qiyās, taqdīr and ʿamal58 further support the interrelatedness among Sībawayhi’s various notions and methods within a skillfully devised system which not only describes but also tries to justify linguistic phenomena. 3. The Classification of Data Within a Coherent System The Kitāb is replete with linguistic data which Sībawayhi either heard firsthand from the Bedouin or learnt from other scholars who collected their material mostly in journeys they made to the Bedouin in their

56 57 58

Kitāb IV, 394; cf. Baalbaki (2001–2002: 16). See, for example, Māzinī, Taṣrīf II, 180; Ibn ʿUṣfūr, Mumtiʿ I, 151. See above, 56, 70, 96.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

153

habitat.59 As far as the process of data collection (ğamʿ al-luġa) itself is concerned, and judging mainly by the biographical sources, Sībawayhi’s role is not as central as that of some of his contemporaries such as Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, Ḫ alīl, Abū Zayd al-Anṣārī and Aṣmaʿī. It should also be noted that Sībawayhi is not interested in the meaning of words and the šawāhid in which they appear, contrary to scholars whose main interest is in ġarīb (strange or unfamiliar usage), especially the poetic material in which it is embedded. Sībawayhi, however, is unrivaled when it comes to data classification. Although we know very little about the contribution of his contemporaries to this domain, it is safe to assume that the Kitāb is not only the first comprehensive attempt at morphological and syntactical analysis of the language, but it is also the first formal attempt at the classification of the linguistic data which was collected during the second half of the second/eighth century. Obviously, in Sībawayhi’s approach which not only describes usage but also analyzes and interprets it, seeking a ʿilla for almost every phenomenon under discussion, data classification is of utmost importance since it is part of the author’s strategy of dealing with his material, particularly with respect to norm versus anomaly (see the previous section). Throughout the Kitāb, moreover, there is a distinct effort to highlight the coherence and consistency of linguistic phenomena, and this may be regarded both as part of the general tendency to demonstrate the ḥ ikma that underlies usage and also as a precursor to the efforts of standardization which are typical of most later authors. Sībawayhi’s classification of his data in a manner that is expected to reveal its coherence will be discussed in this section from three different perspectives: (1) how he interprets the dialectal material relating to word declension, (2) what strategies he adopts in dealing with category conversion, and (3) how he demonstrates the ability of the analytical system to explain the analogy which he establishes between two separate bābs, namely, the vocative and generic lā. 1. Declension of words: Sībawayhi clearly distinguishes between iʿrāb (declinability) and bināʾ (indeclinability), based on whether final vowels are produced by a certain ʿāmil which causes a temporary change or are not the result of any ʿāmil.60 He reinforces this distinction

59 60

Cf. above, 24. Cf. above, 32, 86.

154

chapter three

by using two different sets of terms, one for declinable words (raf ʿ, naṣb, ğarr and ğazm) and another for indeclinable words (ḍamm, fatḥ , kasr and waqf ). In principle, a noun that is muʿrab qualifies for the first set whereas a noun that is mabnī qualifies for the second.61 The dialectal situation reported by the lexicographers in Sībawayhi’s time, however, presents a much more complex picture of iʿrāb and bināʾ in nouns than can be supported by a clear-cut differentiation between the two types. Very broadly, the data which the later sources report suggest the grouping of nouns into four different types based on their status of iʿrāb and bināʾ:62 a. Nouns that are diptotes in most dialects but triptotes in others, namely, the sound feminine plurals and the unnunated diptotes. The former takes a kasra in the accusative and genitive in most dialects, but reportedly takes a fatḥ a in the accusative ʿalā luġa.63 Also, the treatment of the so called mulḥ aq bi-ğamʿ al-muʾannat̠ (annexed or appended to the sound feminine plural; quasi-sound feminine plural) proves that in some dialects the fatḥ a is tolerated in the accusative as raʾaytu Ad̠raʿāta.64 Similarly, the unnunated diptotes show vestiges of being treated as tripotes, as in the pattern faʿlān which in the dialect of Banū Asad is nunated and takes a fatḥ a in the accusative but a kasra in the genitive, as in hād̠ā ʿaṭšānun, raʾaytu ʿaṭšānan, and marartu bi-ʿaṭšānin.65 b. Nouns that are diptotes in most dialects but mabnī in others, namely, the dual and the sound masculine plural. In the dual, the preservation of the -āni ending in all cases is described as a widespread dialect (luġa fāšiya)66 and is ascribed to Banū l-Ḥ ārit ̠ b. Kaʿb, Ḫ at̠ʿam, Zabīd, Kināna, Banū l-ʿAnbar, Banū Huğaym,

61 Verbs are excluded from our discussion since their classification into muʿrab and mabnī often rests on theoretical considerations rather than usage. For example, the grammatical theory interprets the imperfect as mabnī when energetic nūn is suffixed to it without an intervening pronoun (e.g. la-af ʿalanna, la-taf ʿalanna), but muʿrab elsewhere (la-taf ʿalinna < *la-taf ʿalīn(a) + -na; la-taf ʿalunna < *la-taf ʿalūn(a) + -na). Cf. also the purely theoretical controversy as to whether the imperative is mabnī or muʿrab, in which the Basrans and Kufans interpret the paradigm of imperative verbs differently thus arriving at two opposed conclusions (Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf II, 524 ff.). 62 For a detailed survey of these types , see Baalbaki (1990: 18–21). 63 Azharī, Taṣrīḥ I, 80; Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 384; III, 304. 64 Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 48–49; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 22; Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna I, 56–57. 65 Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ I, 67; Ibn Mālik, Tashīl 218. 66 Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ III, 129.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

155

parts of Rabīʿa and Bakr b. Wāʾil, Hamdān, Fazāra and ʿUd̠ra.67 According to these dialects, one would say ğāʾa l-Zaydāni, raʾaytu l-Zaydāni and marartu bi-l-Zaydāni. Among the genuine šawāhid of this phenomenon are lines of poetry, but most strikingly the Qurʾānic verse inna hād̠āni la-sāḥ irāni (“These two are certainly magicians”; Q 20: 63) for which the grammarians advance several interpretations to deny that hād̠āni represents a phenomenon of bināʾ.68 To a lesser extent, the mulḥ aq of the sound masculine plural has an affinity to bināʾ, as in sinīna which, in the dialect of Banū ʿĀmir, is treated like ḥ īna, hence hād̠ihi sinīnun, raʾaytu sinīnan and marartu bi-sinīnin.69 c. Nouns that are triptotes in most dialects but mabnī in others. These are al-asmāʾ al-sitta (the six nouns, i.e. abū, aḫū, d̠ū, etc.) which retain the alif in all cases in the dialects of Banū l-Ḥ ārit ̠, Ḫ atʿ̠ am, Zabīd, Kināna and Hamdān.70 d. Several nouns that are mabnī in most dialects but vary in their iʿrāb in others. The most obvious examples include amsi, the pattern faʿāli, d̠ū of Ṭayyiʾ, allad̠ūna, ḥ ayt̠u, ladun, and proper nouns ending in -wayhi.71 A considerable portion of the dialectal differences reported in the sources is incompatible with any standardized system which sharply distinguishes between iʿrāb and bināʾ. As we noted in the previous section, Sībawayhi is keen to uphold what we called “basic rules” by maximizing the applicability of the norm and minimizing deviations which undermine it. In dealing with dialectal material which is neither in line with general usage nor with the sharp distinction between iʿrāb and bināʾ, Sībawayhi adopts the following three strategies: a. He seems to ignore the usage which disturbs the clear classification of a certain word either as a muʿrab or mabnī. In discussing relative pronouns, all of which are mabnī except dual ones (allad̠āni, allatāni, etc.), he does not mention allad̠ūna which occurs in the

67 68 69 70 71

Ibn Hišām, Šarḥ 46–47 and Muġnī I, 38–39; Suyūṭī, Hamʿ I, 40. Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ III, 129 ff.; Ibn Hišām, Šarḥ 49. Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 45–46; ʿAynī, Maqāṣid I, 175. Ibn Hišām, Šarḥ 47; ʿAynī, Maqāṣid I, 138. See the dialectal variants pertaining to these nouns in Baalbaki (1990: 20–21).

156

chapter three dialects of Ṭayyiʾ, Hud̠ayl and ʿUqayl,72 and which is most probably the result of false analogy with the sound masculine plural (cf. al-muslimīna/al-muslimūna and allad̠īna/allad̠ūna). Admittedly, it is possible that Sībawayhi was not cognizant of this usage, but this is not very likely because the šāhid in which allad̠ūna occurs (i.e. the line naḥ nu llad̠ūna ṣabbaḥ ū l-ṣabāḥ ā *yawma l-Nuḫ ayli ġāratan milḥ āḥ ā; “We are the ones who, on the morn of the battle of the Nuḫayl, greeted the morning with an unrelenting raid”) is ascribed to early poets—such as Ruʾba, Laylā l-Aḫyaliyya and Abū Ḥ arb al-Aʿlam—whose poetry is regarded as a source of linguistic data. Furthermore, the šāhid is the first of several lines quoted by Sībawayhi’s contemporary, Abū Zayd al-Anṣārī (d. 215/830) in his Nawādir,73 so it is legitimate to doubt Sībawayhi’s unawareness of its existence. Whatever the truth of the matter may be, Sībawayhi ignores other dialectal material that is anomalous from the point of view of iʿrāb and bināʾ. Whether he intentionally does so, however, is difficult to determine. Among the most remarkable examples are those of ladun and halumma. In his discussion of ladun, Sībawayhi says that it is uninflected (ġayr mutamakkina) and thus resembles qaṭt ̣ but not ʿinda.74 The argument rests on the ğazm of ladun75 which Sībawayhi reinforces by observing that it is retained even when ladun is preceded by a preposition, as in min ladunhu. Contrary to this usage, the dialectal of Qays—as the later sources tell us—treats ladun as muʿrab,76 and it is interesting to note that this occurs in the qirāʾa of ʿĀṣim (d. 127/745): li-yund̠ira baʾsan šadīdan min ladnihi (“in order that He may warn [the godless] of a terrible punishment from Him”; Q 18: 2) which is also adopted by Ibn Muğāhid77 (d. 324/936). As far as halumma is concerned, Sībawayhi insists that this is the only possible usage and specifically denies the existence of halummi (wa-lā yaksir halumma aḥ ad).78 He also compares iḍribi l-rağula, where a kasra follows the verb to prevent a consonant cluster, with the impermissible

Ušmūnī, Šarḥ I, 68; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 83. Abū Zayd, Nawādir 239. 74 Kitāb III, 286. 75 Note the use of ğazm, which belongs to the set of terms which describe inflected words, in connection with an uninflected word. 76 Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Kāfiya II, 123; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 333; Ušmūnī, Šarḥ II, 319. 77 Qaysī, Kašf II, 54. 78 Kitāb III, 534. 72 73

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

157

construction *halummi yā fatā and concludes that halumma is not as strong as the verb (lam taqwa quwwatahu) since a kasra in such a position is not tolerated. Irrespective of this difference, however, halummi is reported in later sources and is ascribed, on the authority of Ğarmī (d. 225/840), to Tamīm.79 b. He criticizes usage which is inharmonious with the norms of iʿrāb and bināʾ. This may be viewed as part of his more general tendency to preserve the norm and to comment negatively on certain dialects which are scarcely used and which contradict the general usage (even the Ḥ iğāzī usage of nabīʾ and barīʾa is described as qalīl radīʾ).80 The case of ḫ amsata ʿašara, which he normally uses to typify compound numerals from thirteen to nineteen, can best exemplify this phenomenon as it relates to iʿrāb and bināʾ. Sībawayhi’s justification of bināʾ in both parts of ḫ amsata ʿašara is closely linked to his interpretation of a large number of words which result from the coalescence of two elements (cf. the expressions bi-manzilat ism wāḥid and šayʾāni ğuʿilā šayʾan wāḥ idan).81 The compound numeral is compared not only with counterparts such as Ḥ aḍramawta, Baʿlabakka, ḥ ayṣa bayṣa and ḥ ayyahala, but also with less obvious or “natural” candidates of coalescence such as generic lā and its noun (e.g. both lā rağula and ḫ amsata ʿašara are said to have the status of one noun).82 The change from ḫ amsatun and ʿašaratun, both of which are muʿrab, to ḫ amsata ʿašara, both of whose parts are mabnī, contrary to other words which do not coalesce and hence do not lose their iʿrāb (cf. ḫūlifa bihā), is according to Sībawayhi the reason why compound numerals are mabnī (ʿalā ḥ āl wāḥ ida).83 Understandably, he describes the use of ḫ amsata ʿašaruka as bad Arabic (luġa radīʾa), and although he does not provide any justification for his view, it is clear that the scantiness of this usage84 and its inconsistency with qiyās—which stipulates that indefinite nouns

Ušmūnī, Šarḥ III, 898 (cf. Ṣabbān, Ḥ āšiya IV, 353); Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ II, 107. Cf. above, 39. 81 Kitāb II, 416; III, 297. 82 Ibid., II, 274–275. For the common features which Sībawayhi observes among the various words (including ḫ amsata ʿašara) which are the result of coalescence, see Baalbaki (1999a: 86–106). 83 Kitāb II, 274; III, 297–299. 84 Cf. Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 179: wa-qawm min al-ʿArab yaqūlūna hād̠ihi arbaʿata ʿašaruka wa-marartu bi-arbaʿata ʿašarika wa-hum qalīl. 79 80

158

chapter three

that are mabnī retain their bināʾ in iḍāfa (annexion)85—are the reasons behind it. To condone this usage would certainly disturb one of the main aspects of the distinction between iʿrāb and bināʾ, namely, that nouns which result from coalescence acquire bināʾ and normally have a fatḥ a in both parts (cf. Ḥ aḍramawta, ḥ ayṣa bayṣa, etc.).86 Sībawayhi is obviously keen not to allow the occurrence of ḫ amsata ʿašaruka to undermine either the consistency of the data under discussion or the norm of bināʾ in compound numerals and other nouns which originate from two merged elements. c. He interprets the data in a manner which preserves its consistency. How this principle applies to iʿrāb and bināʾ is particularly manifest in his discussion of kilā and kiltā. Sībawayhi asserts that kilā (and hence kiltā as well) is never used as singular and is always dual (wa-lā tufrad kilā innamā takūn li-l-mut̠annā abadan).87 This statement, however, refers only to the meaning of the two words but not to their form since Sībawayhi elsewhere compares kilā to miʿā, singular of amʿāʾ (intestines), and argues that the alif of kiltā in the construction raʾaytu kiltā uḫtayka is a feminine marker (i.e. not a dual marker).88 Moreover, he quotes Ḫ alīl’s view that kilā in the genitive and accusative is comparable to ʿalā and ladā (cf. ʿalā, but ʿalayhimā; and kilā, but kilayhimā).89 The purport of this comparison is to argue that -ā in kilā and kiltā is not a dual ending. Sībawayhi’s ambivalence in interpreting these two words is reflected in the Basran position as formulated by Ibn al-Anbārī (d. 577/1181) and supported by the Basran sources. Ibn al-Anbārī ascribes to the Basrans the view that the two words are singular in form but dual in meaning (anna fīhimā ifrādan lafẓiyyan wa-tat̠niya maʿnawiyya) and to the Kufans the view that they are dual both in form and meaning.90 The later sources usually men85 This argument, which is implied in the Kitāb, is clearly formulated by Mubarrad (Muqtaḍab II, 179): wa-mā lam taruddahu l-nakira ilā aṣlihi lam taruddahu l-iḍāfa. 86 Sībawayhi also reports Yūnus’s view that no noun made out of two elements, such as Maʿdīkarib, can be nunated (laysa šayʾ yağtamiʿ min šayʾayni fa-yuğʿal isman summiya bihi wāḥ id illā lam yuṣraf; III, 297). 87 Kitāb III, 413. 88 Ibid., III, 364. 89 Ibid., III, 413. 90 Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf II, 439 ff. Confirmation of the authenticity of the two views comes from Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 241 (kilā ism wāḥ id fīhi maʿnā l-tat̠niya) and Farrāʾ, Maʿānī II, 142; cf. Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ I, 54.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

159

tion kilā and kiltā under the dual, and more specifically under words which they call mulḥ aq bi-l-mut̠annā (annexed or appended to the dual; quasi-dual) and which do not have corresponding singular forms, such as it̠nāni and it̠natāni.91 The syntactical characteristics of kilā and kiltā obviously discouraged the grammarians from classifying them as mut̠annā proper since they behave as dual only when their genitive is a pronoun. Thus, one would say ğāʾanī kilāhumā, ğāʾatnī kiltāhumā, raʾaytu kilayhimā, raʾaytu kiltayhimā, marartu bi-kilayhimā and marartu bi-kiltayhimā, but when the genitive is not a pronoun, both words preserve their alif in the nominative, accusative and genitive, as in ğāʾanī kilā l-rağulayni wa-kiltā l-marʾatayni, raʾaytu kilā l-rağulayni wa-kiltā l-marʾatayni, and marartu bi-kilā l-rağulayni wa-kiltā l-marʾatayni. The dialectal picture is further complicated by the fact that kilā and kiltā in some dialects are uninflected even when their genitive is a pronoun, hence ğāʾa l-Zaydāni kilāhumā, raʾaytu l-Zaydāni kilāhumā, and marartu bi-l-Zaydāni kilāhumā.92 By interpreting the two words as singular in form, Sībawayhi does not have to ignore or criticize any attested usage (cf. “a” and “b” above), and at the same time he presents a more coherent picture of iʿrāb and bināʾ than would be the case were he to consider the two words to be dual in form. Apart from dialectal variations, Sībawayhi deals with nouns expected to be muʿrab, based on his distinction between mutamakkin and nonmutamakkin nouns, but which are mabnī in certain circumstances.93 The later grammarians usually call this phenomenon bināʾ ʿāriḍ (transient indeclinability), and all six cases which they cite are actually discussed in the Kitāb. Although Sībawayhi discusses these cases in different parts of his book, he certainly views them as a distinct group which requires justification. The best proof of this is that he cites the same reason for bināʾ in each of these six cases without exception, namely, that a change occurred in the treatment of these nouns and thus caused them to be Ibn al-Nāẓim, Šarḥ 40–43; Ibn Hišām, Šarḥ 52–53; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 41–43. Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 43; cf. Ušmūnī’s expression (Šarḥ I, 32): wa-baʿḍuhum yuʿribuhā iʿrāb al-ism al-maqṣūr muṭlaqan. In fact, the traditional view that kilā and kiltā resemble maqṣūr nouns (i.e. nouns which end with alif maqṣūra like fatā) and are thus muʿrab by presumed vowels (ḥ arakāt muqaddara)—that is, a ḍamma in ğāʾanī kilāhumā, etc.—is simply one form of denying that the two words are mabnī. 93 Kitāb I, 13–15; cf. below, 228. 91 92

160

chapter three

different from other nouns. The tangible result of this change, he argues, is that these nouns do not conform to the norms of iʿrāb and bināʾ, and although they are usually muʿrab, they shift to bināʾ when they are subject to the above-mentioned change. These six cases are:94 a. The vocative which consists of a single word (al-munādā l-mufrad): This is different from other nouns because it has the ending of the nominative yet the grammatical position of the accusative (wa-l-mufrad raf ʿ wa-huwa fī mawḍiʿ ism manṣūb).95 In the case of annexion (iḍāfa), the supposed aṣl—i.e. iʿrāb—is restored, hence the bināʾ in yā rağulu is matched by iʿrāb in yā ʿAbdallāhi.96 b. The noun of lā which consists of a single word (ism lā l-mufrad): Sībawayhi uses the expression ḫūlifa bihā ʿan ḥ āl sāʾir aḫ awātihā to indicate the change to which lā was subject and which caused its noun to be treated differently. Lā only governs indefinite nouns and hence does not resemble other operants (described as its aḫ awāt “sisters”) which govern the accusative—specifically, transitive verbs and particles. Hence, according to him, this causes the operand of lā to be mabnī, unlike other operands. Moreover, both lā and its noun, as in lā rağula, are interpreted as having the status of a single noun (bi-manzilat ism marfūʿ ) and thus resemble mabnī nouns which also consist of two elements, such as ḫ amsata ʿašara.97 c. Compound numerals such as ḫ amsata ʿašara: As mentioned earlier, and similar to “b” above, these numerals are said to have been subject to change in comparison to their “sisters”, and this was reflected in the change from iʿrāb to bināʾ ( fa-lammā ḫūlifa bihi ʿan ḥ āl aḫawātihi mimmā yakūn li-l-ʿadad ḫūlifa bihi wa-ğuʿila ka-ulāʾi . . . wa-ğuʿila ka-ġayr al-mutamakkin).98 d. Adverbs like qablu and baʿdu: These differ from other nouns because they cannot occur in the grammatical positions which most nouns occupy, such as subject or predicate, and because their syntactical characteristics are determined by whether they are fol-

94 95 96 97 98

Cf. Baalbaki (1990: 24–26) for a more detailed discussion of these six cases. Kitāb II, 182. Ibid., II, 182–183, 199. Ibid., II, 274–276. Ibid., III, 298; cf. III, 557–559.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

161

lowed by a genitive (i.e. in annexion) or not.99 Furthermore, such adverbs (which are considered nouns in the tradition) cannot be indefinite (wa-lā takūn nakira) unlike other nouns. It is implied that the syntactical peculiarities of these adverbs and the fact that they are different from other nouns in the norms of definiteness and indefiniteness are the reasons for their transient bināʾ.100 e. Ayy in constructions like iḍrib ayyuhum afḍalu: Ayy is ordinarily muʿrab, but when it is construct and followed by the predicate of an elided subject (assumed to be huwa in our example), it is mabnī because it preserves its ḍamma in all cases (hence also ğāʾa ayyuhum afḍalu and marartu bi-ayyuhum afḍalu). According to Sībawayhi, ayy underwent a change relative to its sisters, such as mā, because in similar constructions with these sisters the pronoun cannot be elided (hence hāti mā huwa aḥ sanu, but not *hāti mā aḥ sanu). This change caused ayy to be different vis-à-vis its iʿrāb ( fa-lammā kānat aḫ awātuhu mufāriqa lahu lā tustaʿmal kamā yustaʿmal ḫ ālafū bi-iʿrābihā).101 f. Nouns of the pattern faʿāli: Sībawayhi explains that such nouns can either have the meaning of a verb—as in manāʿi, tarāki, ḥ ad̠āri and nazāli which are equivalent in meaning to imnaʿ, utruk, iḥ da̠ r and inzil—or can be used adjectivally in vocative and non-vocative contexts—as in ğaʿāri, a name for ğāʿira (hyena) and ḥ alāqi, a name for ḥ āliqa (death). In both cases, he says that the pattern is maʿdūl ʿan ḥ addihi or maʿdūl ʿan ḥ addihi wa-aṣlihi, hence bināʾ contrary to other nouns.102 2. Category conversion: The basic word classes in Sībawayhi’s grammatical theory are nouns, verbs and particles. This tripartite division has obvious disadvantages. For example, the category “noun” includes substantives, infinitives, proper nouns, relative pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, etc. (contrary to Western models of categorization). Under the category “particle” is included whatever is not suitable for inclusion under either of the other two categories. The grammarians themselves seem to have

99

Ibid., III, 286. Ibid., III, 285. The argument of change is more clearly formulated by Mubarrad (Muqtaḍab II, 174): kānat muḫ ālifa li-l-bāb maʿrifa bi-ġayr iḍāfa fa-ṣurifat ʿan wuğūhihā. 101 Kitāb II, 400. 102 Ibid., III, 270 ff. 100

162

chapter three

been aware of this state of affairs, and the futility of their attempts to adopt a coherent definition of the category “noun” is largely due to the fact that their classification recognizes as nouns words that are as disparate as rağul, d̠ahāb, Zayd, allad̠ī, hād̠ā, qablu, admirative mā, interrogative ayna and conditional man. The term ḥ arf mušabbah bi-l-fiʿl (particle assimilated to the verb) used by the later grammarian betrays an attempt to broaden the tripartite division without the creation of a new category. Similarly, the term ism fiʿl (lit. proper name of the verb) points in that direction, and interestingly enough Suyūt ̣ī (d. 911/1505) reports, on the authority of Abū Ḥ ayyān (d. 745/1344) that Ibn Ṣābir (d. ?) assigns to asmāʾ al-af ʿāl a fourth part of speech which he calls al-ḫ ālifa (what replaces another)—a view which remained at best marginal.103 Sībawayhi was certainly aware of the phenomenon of category conversion which we can also refer to, from the grammarian’s point of view, as reclassification. We shall restrict our comments here to the category of “noun” which comprises several types referred to above. Sībawayhi often cites shifts which take place among these types, most notably the following ones:104 a. Awwal can be a ṣifa (adjective) as in mud̠ ʿāmun awwalu, an ism (substantive) as in mā taraka lahu awwalan wa-lā āḫiran, and a ẓarf (adverb) as in mud̠ ʿāmun awwala.105 b. Ruwayda can be an ism fiʿl (proper name of the verb) as in ruwayda Zaydan, a ṣifa (adjective) as in sārū sayran ruwaydan, and a ḥ āl (circumstantial accusative) as in sārū ruwaydan.106 c. Sawāʾ can be a ṣifa (adjective) as in marartu bi-rağulayni sawāʾin, a ẓarf (adverb) as in hād̠ā rağulun sawāʾaka, and ḥ āl (circumstantial accusative) as in hād̠ā dirhamun sawāʾan.107 d. As a noun, mā can be istifhāmiyya (interrogative), taʿağğubiyya (exclamative), šarṭiyya (conditional), ma ʿ rifa tāmma (fully

103 Suyūtị̄ , Ašbāh III, 2; cf. Buġya I, 311 where Suyūtị̄ identifies Ibn Ṣābir by this view. See also Levin (1991: 254–255). 104 See these and other examples, as well as the various types of reclassification mentioned in the sources, in Baalbaki (1995b: 1–13). 105 Kitāb III, 288–289. 106 Ibid., I, 241–244. 107 Ibid., I, 431, 407; II, 119.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

163

definite), mawṣūla (relative), and nakira mawṣūfa (qualified indefinite).108 e. Certain words shift their grammatical function according to the type of construction in which they are used. For example, ḫ all is tamyīz (specification) in hād̠ā rāqūdun ḫ allan, but a ṣifa (adjective) in the less acceptable, yet permissible construction, hād̠ā rāqūdun ḫ allun.109 Based on Sībawayhi’s tripartite division of categories, the above examples represent a shift in grammatical function within the same category of noun. As such, they are not problematic to him in the sense that they do not require justification since, strictly speaking, no conversion of category is involved. With reference to the concept of “basic rule” elaborated in the previous section, the clear distinction between the three parts of speech represents a norm which has to be maintained since lack of such distinction would have a far-reaching impact on one of the most important axioms of syntactical analysis. It is in light of this fact that Sībawayhi’s permissive attitude towards the above-mentioned shifts within the same category can be understood. It should also be pointed out that Sībawayhi recognizes the same type of shift in the other two categories as well. For example, he points out that the imperfect may occur in the grammatical position of the perfect (wa-qad taqaʿ naf ʿalu fī mawḍiʿ faʿalnā).110 Similarly, he recognizes within the category of particle several functions linked to one linguistic element; thus one can speak of a shift within the same category, as in the case of li- which may be a preposition (lām al-ğarr), a complement of an oath (lām alqasam), an affirmative particle (lām al-tawkīd), a particle of surprise (lām al-taʿağğub), a particle of requisition (lām al-amr), etc.111 On the other hand, Sībawayhi very rarely acknowledges the occurrence of shifts that cut across two distinct categories, and this must be seen as part of his effort to preserve the norm and minimize deviations from it. We do not, for example, encounter any case in which a particle is reclassified 108 See Hārūn’s indexes to the Kitāb (V, 354–357) for the various usages of mā; cf. Zağğāğī, Ḥ urūf 53–55; Murādī, Ğanā 336–341; Ibn Hišām, Muġnī 296–318. 109 Kitāb II, 117. 110 Ibid., III, 24. The šāhid cited by Sībawayhi in this case is wa-laqad amurru which in context has the meaning of wa-laqad marartu since the verbs that are conjoined to it are perfect. 111 See a comprehensive list of the types of lām discussed by Sībawayhi in Hārūn’s indexes to Kitāb V, 346–348.

164

chapter three

as a verb and accordingly requiring a subject or a direct object, or a verb reclassified as a noun and acquiring the syntactical characteristics which pertain to nouns.112 There are, however, three distinct examples in which Sībawayhi acknowledges a shift from particle to noun. What is common to these is that he tries in each case to defend another norm of usage and opts to confirm an exception to the boundaries between the parts of speech rather than an exception to the specific case under discussion. Although this is apparently against his usual choice of admitting anomaly in a specific form, particle, etc. rather than in the major axioms as noted in the previous section, there seems to be a good reason for his choice, namely, the aversion of an alternative explanation which would equally undermine another axiom of his. The three examples in the Kitāb are the following:113 a. ʿan: In the chapter which deals with the genitive (bāb al-ğarr), Sībawayhi distinguishes between three groups of operants or words which cause the genitive, namely, those that are neither nouns nor adverbs (e.g. bi-, li-, ka-, min, fī, rubba, etc.), those that are adverbs (ẓurūf; e.g. ḫ alfa, fawqa, ʿinda, maʿa, ʿalā, etc.), and those that are nouns (asmāʾ; e.g. mit̠l, ġayr, kull, ḥ imār, ğidār, etc.). The first group is obviously restricted to “prepositions” and ʿan is listed in it. But ʿan, contrary to all other examples Sībawayhi cites in the three types, is also mentioned in the second group along with adverbs. Sībawayhi justifies this by arguing that ʿan can have the status (manzila) of d̠āta l-yamīni and nāḥ iya because an expression like min ʿan yamīnika is similar in structure to min nāḥ iyati kad̠ā wa-kad̠ā.114 The most likely reason for considering ʿan to be an adverb, however, is given in a much later chapter in which Sībawayhi, using the very same example min ʿan yamīnika, says

112 It should be noted that the equivalence of an and the subjunctive after it to a verbal noun is part of the tamt̠īl (representation) of a construction in order to examine its syntactical structure and not an example of category conversion. This is clearly expressed by Sībawayhi in his interpretation of the subjunctive after an elided an (Kitāb III, 28) and by the fact that the subjunctive is recognized as a peculiarity of verbs and not nouns. 113 The later grammarians add a few more examples to these, notably mud̠ and mund̠u, ḫ alā, ḥ āšā, laʿalla, matā, and various types of the category ism al-fiʿl; cf. Baalbaki (1995b: 3–6). 114 Kitāb I, 420.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

165

that ʿan is an ism (note that ẓarf is also an ism) because the preposition min can only govern nouns.115 It is clear that Sībawayhi’s interpretation of ʿan is intended to avoid the potentially damaging option of allowing prepositions to occur in succession since that would lead to ascribing to the second preposition one of the most essential characteristics of nouns, namely, being governed by a preposition which causes the genitive. It seems that Sībawayhi had to choose between two interpretations both of which would “blur” the distinction between nouns and particles: either consider ʿan to be a particle which is preceded by a preposition and thus be in the position of a noun, or argue that it is a noun and undermine the distinction between particles and nouns. It would be pure conjecture, however, to determine why he opted for the second interpretation or which of the two options would more adversely affect the coherency of the analytical system. What is clear is that Sībawayhi does not face the same situation with ʿalā because he considers it to be an adverb (i.e. a noun) and not a preposition. Hence, the expression nahaḍa min ʿalayhi is not problematic because, as nouns, adverbs can be preceded by prepositions (cf. min qablu, min qabli hād̠ā and Sībawayhi’s own comparison between nahaḍtu min ʿalayhi and nahaḍtu min fawqihi).116 b. ka-: On two separate occasions, Sībawayhi identifies a nominal usage for this preposition. In the hemistich fa-ṣuyyirū mit̠la ka-ʿaṣfin maʾkūl (“They were made like leaves of which the contents have been eaten”), he notes that ka- has the status of the noun mit̠l, and this implies that ka- in such a construction is a noun. He also argues that ka- has the same meaning as mit̠l. This equivalence in status and meaning, according to Sībawayhi, is restricted to poetry, unlike the case of ʿan.117 Obviously, the resemblance between ka- and mit̠l facilitated the interpretation advanced by Sībawayhi and adopted by the later grammarians, whereas none of the other uniliteral particles which govern the genitive (i.e. bi-, li- and jurative ta-) has a nominal counterpart, so it cannot be subject to similar interpretation. An alternative explanation which Sībawayhi could have advanced is to insist 115

Ibid., IV, 228. Ibid., I, 420; III, 268; IV, 231. 117 Ibid., I, 32, 408; cf. Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab IV, 140–142; Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Uṣūl I, 439–440. For the various views on ka-, see Mālaqī, Raṣf 195 ff.; Murādī, Ğanā 78 ff. 116

166

chapter three

that ka- in the above-cited hemistich is a particle. That, however, would have created a different problem, namely, the acknowledgment, contrary to a universal norm, that a particle can have a grammatical position (mawḍiʿ, that is maḥ all in later and more commonly used terminology) and thus acquire a feature which is peculiar to nouns and verbs to the exclusion of particles. c. illā: Sībawayhi dedicates a separate chapter to this case of category conversion in which illā and what follows it are equivalent to an adjective which has the status (manzila) of nouns such as mit̠l and ġayr (hād̠ā bāb mā yakūn fīhi illā wa-mā baʿdahu waṣfan bimanzilat mit̠l wa-ġayr).118 He argues that in the construction law kāna maʿanā illā Zaydun la-halaknā (“Had we been accompanied by anyone other than Zayd, we would have perished”), it would be absurd (la-kunta qad aḥ alta) to consider illā to be an exceptive particle. Sībawayhi seems to have used the affinity between exceptive illā on the one hand and the nouns mit̠l and ġayr, which are also used in exceptive constructions, on the other in order to justify another case of category conversion, as he did in the case of ka- and mit̠l. As with ka-, to insist that illā is a particle and ascribe to it and its complement119 the status of an adjective would be tantamount to an admission that particles, like nouns and verbs, do have a grammatical mawḍiʿ or maḥ all. 3. Analogy between two bābs:120 The above discussion of Sībawayhi’s approach to word declension and category conversion demonstrates a keen interest in defending the phenomena under discussion and the consistency of his grammatical system of analysis in dealing with these phenomena. There seems to be, however, another level of this coherency and consistency which cuts across more than one bāb and which can particularly confirm the validity of the analytical system on a wider scale than is possible in any single bāb. Perhaps the most essential notion in this respect is analogy since it is often

118

Kitāb II, 331–335; cf. Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab IV, 408–410; Ibn Hišām, Muġnī I, 70–72. 119 Note that the grammarians differ as to whether illā by itself, or together with its complement, stands for an adjective; cf. Murādī, Ğanā 517–518. 120 Grammatical works, including the Kitāb, are normally divided into bābs (e.g. bāb al-musnad wa-l-musnad ilayhi, bāb al-amr wa-l-nahy, etc.). We shall use this term to refer to the grammarians’ division of their corpus since it is more precise than “chapter” as one bāb can include several subtitles under which specific or subsidiary issues are discussed.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

167

applied to phenomena that transcend a particular bāb and that can straddle the parts of speech. Among the abundant examples of this aspect of analogy in the Kitāb are the equivalence between the genitive in nouns and the jussive in verbs,121 the analogy between inna and the transitive verb since each of them governs two operands,122 and the analogy between the imperfect and nouns in grammatical position (mawḍiʿ, maḥ all).123 Yet in spite of such relatively broad analogies which are not restricted to one bāb or one part of speech, it remains a fact that neither Sībawayhi nor any of the later grammarians attempted a truly systematic comparison between any two grammatical bābs or topics. The closest example to such systematic comparison is the one between the bāb of nidāʾ (vocation) and that of generic lā in the Kitāb and subsequent works. The development of this comparison will be examined elsewhere,124 and we shall therefore restrict the discussion below to Sībawayhi’s role in establishing this remarkable and unique instance of broad analogy. The study of nidāʾ and the two topics annexed to it—i.e. nudba (lamentation) and tarḫīm (euphonic elision)—is immediately followed in the Kitāb by the bāb of lā. But this close proximity in location is merely a formal representation of the profound similarities between the two bābs and the uniformity of the analytical concepts and methods which the system provides in examining both of them. The most important among these similarities are the following:125 a. One-noun status: In both bābs, Sībawayhi resorts to the notion of two elements which have the status of one noun (bi-manzilat ism wāḥ id). Among vocative constructions which are interpreted in accordance with this notion are:126 (1) constructions in which ayyu precedes the definite noun with the intervention of hā, as in yā ayyuhā l-rağulu, and has with that noun the same status as rağulu in yā rağulu; (2) constructions with a demonstrative proCf. Sībawayhi’s expression: al-ğarr fī l-af ʿāl naẓīr al-ğazm fī l-asmāʾ (I, 19). Kitāb II, 131, 148. 123 The result of this analogy, according to Sībawayhi, is that the imperfect accepts raf ʿ (III, 9–10). It should be noted that this analogy is expressed by the use of a single term, raf ʿ, to indicate both the indicative and the nominative. 124 Cf. Baalbaki (forthcoming a). 125 For these examples and further details, see Baalbaki (forthcoming a). 126 See the examples that follow in Kitāb II, 188, 189, 192, 195, 203–208. 121 122

168

chapter three

noun followed by a definite noun, as in yā hād̠ā l-rağulu, where the two nouns together (i.e. hād̠ā and al-rağulu) have the status of rağulu in yā rağulu; (3) constructions with proper nouns of the type Zayd bin ʿAmr, such as yā Zayda bna ʿAmrin, where Zayd and its adjective, bin (i.e. bna), have the status of a single noun; and (4) constructions in which the proper noun is repeated with a genitive, as in yā Tayma Tayma ʿAdiyyin, where the second Tayma is said to have the status of the hāʾ in Ṭalḥ a (i.e. both the first and the second Tayma have the status of one noun). On the other hand, the following observations can be made concerning the applicability of the principle of one-noun status to generic lā constructions: (1) lā itself may be the first of two elements which have the status of one noun, the second element being its operand, as in lā rağula afḍalu minka;127 (2) lā rağula is said to resemble compound numerals such as ḫamsata ʿašara which themselves are often described as having the status of a single noun;128 and (3) when lā is followed by one adjective, as in lā ġulāma ẓarīfa laka, the noun and the adjective—both of which are not nunated—are given the status of a single noun,129 whereas if a second adjective follows, as in lā ġulāma ẓarīfa ʿāqilan laka, it has to be nunated since it is not part of the nominal cluster formed by the previous elements in the construction. By demonstrating the analyzability of both vocative and lā constructions by means of the notion of one-noun status, Sībawayhi virtually demonstrates the potency of this notion as an analytical tool since its use is not restricted to a particular bāb whose idiosynchrasies may need special interpretation but is generalized to other bābs which exhibit arguably similar syntactical phenomena. b. Contradiction of the norm: In the first of the two bābs, that of nidāʾ, Sībawayhi invokes the principle that forms, patterns, etc. which are subject to change are often treated differently from their counterparts.130 In the vocative, he observes that different treatment occurs in (1) the omission (i.e. vowel shortening) of the first person pronominal suffix in yā qawmi < qawmī or yā ʿibādi < ʿibādī

127

Ibid., II, 274, 284, 288. Cf. above, 157. 129 Ibid., II, 289. 130 Cf. above, 159–161, for the applicability of this principle to transient iʿrāb, including the vocative and the noun of lā. 128

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

169

and forms like yā abah/abati/abatāh and yā ummah, ummāh, ḫālah, ḫālatāh, etc.;131 (2) the use of ayyuhā in constructions of the type yā ayyuhā l-rağulu where the occurrence of the premonitory (tanbīh) particle -hā along with the vocative particle yā is said to have necessitated that ayy be followed by a noun which elucidates it;132 (3) the existence of nouns that are used only in the vocative, such as ḫabāt̠i, lakāʿi, lukaʿu, fusaqu, nawmānu, hanāh, fulu, etc.;133 and (4) the use in tarḫīm of apocopation which he describes as impermissible except in nidāʾ and poetic license.134 The most significant peculiarity of nidāʾ, however, is the one shared by lā constructions, namely, that nunation is elided from the vocative as well as from the noun of lā, most notably in yā rağulu and lā rağula.135 Sībawayhi cites this elision in the very first few lines of the discussion of both nidāʾ and lā, and in the latter he makes a clear comparison between the two bābs by arguing that elision is due to the fact that in both cases a change takes place causing a difference between them and their sisters or counterparts (ḫūlifa bihā ʿan ḥ āl aḫ awātihā). Furthermore, Sībawayhi observes that lā and the noun it governs have the grammatical position of a nominal subject (i.e. ibtidāʾ), contrary to other particles which govern nouns, and that the vocative in constructions of the type yā Zaydu disagrees with the norm since its vowel is peculiar to the nominative but its grammatical position is that of the accusative.136 c. Elision (ḥ ad̠f ) and lightness (taḫfīf, istiḫ fāf ): Sībawayhi alerts to the applicability of these two notions to vocative as well as to lā constructions. Among the comparable constructions which he cites are: lā abā/ġulāmay/muslimay laka—where the nunation in the first word (i.e. aban) and the final –ni in the two other words (i.e. ġulāmayni and muslimayni) are elided—and yā Tayma Tayma ʿAdiyyin, the nunation of whose origin (i.e. yā Tayman) is elided as well.137 Equally similar constructions from the two bābs include

131 132 133 134 135 136 137

Ibid., II, 209–213, 239. Ibid., II, 211–212. Ibid., II, 198. Ibid., II, 239. Ibid., II, 183, 274–275. Ibid., II, 274, 182. Ibid., II, 276–278; cf. II, 205–208.

170

chapter three lā aba (with a short vowel) /ġulāmayni/ğāriyatayni laka, where iḍāfa (annexion) is not intended, and yā Taymu Tayma ʿAdiyyin, where the nominative in Taymu indicates that iḍāfa is no more operational.138 The similarity between the vocative and the noun of lā from this perspective is further highlighted by Sībawayhi when he points out that, in both of them, elision takes place at the end of the noun (wa-innamā yuḥ da̠ f fī l-nafy wa-l-nidāʾ muntahā l-ism;139 cf. yā rağulu/lā rağula). Also in the comparable constructions yā ḍāriban rağulan/lā ḍāriban Zaydan laka and yā ḫ ayran minka/lā ḫ ayran minhu laka, Sībawayhi explains that what follows ḍāriban and ḫayran in each case is a part of the noun (min tamām al-ism). In other words, ḍāriban and rağulan, and ḫ ayran and minka form a cluster which is equivalent to a single noun.140

Taken together, the above three aspects of similarity between vocative and lā constructions provide solid grounds for the comparison between the two bābs, and although Sībawayhi does not systematically make this comparison, it is clear that he is keen to demonstrate the ability of his analytical methods to suggest uniform interpretations to two apparently distinct types of constructions. This explains the numerous cross-references in these two bābs as well as in other parts of the Kitāb as we shall see later.141 4. The Balance Between Form and Meaning The Arabic grammatical theory is generally known for its preoccupation with lafẓ (form) more than maʿnā (meaning). Unfortunately, the preponderance of lafẓ over maʿnā is widely assumed to be true of the various stages of development of the discipline, perhaps as a result of the fact that until a few decades ago the grammatical tradition has been indiscriminately judged by almost exclusive reliance on later sources and commentaries considered to be representative of the whole tradition including earlier works. More recent study of Sībawayhi’s Kitāb

138 139 140 141

Ibid., II, 207, 282–283. Ibid., II, 287; cf. II, 229, 288. Ibid., II, 229, 287. Cf. chapter III, section 8.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

171

certainly does not support the claim that the balance between lafẓ and maʿnā has been static throughout the history of grammatical writing; the picture is much more complex. In very broad terms, there is a sharp difference between Sībawayhi and later grammarians in this respect.142 This notwithstanding, the emphasis on formal considerations occurred at a fairly stage in the history of grammar, but at a gradual pace since some authors of the third/ninth and fourth/tenth centuries represent a middle stage in this development. Also to be taken into consideration is that there have been quite a few attempts to restore the role of maʿnā in grammatical analysis. Ğāḥiẓ (d. 255/869), Ibn Ğinnī (d. 392/1002), and Suhaylī (d. 581/1185) are among the most prominent authors in this respect as we shall see in Chapter four. The picture becomes even more complicated when the contribution of some rhetoricians (balāġiyyūn) is taken into consideration. In particular, Ğurğānī’s (d. 471/1078) criticism of the grammarians, including Sībawayhi, centers on their failure to address issues related to maʿnā due to their preoccupation with lafẓ. Consequently, a statement like “Arab linguistics is famous for its concern with linguistic form”143 may well be true as a broad description of the Arab tradition, but it is certainly too simplistic to account for the major differences which exist among Arab grammarians, or among them and some rhetoricians, with respect to the lafẓ/maʿnā dichotomy. Sībawayhi’s interest in maʿnā is almost fully restricted to the study of syntax, and other types of semantic investigation are either summarily mentioned or totally ignored. For example, in his Risāla Sībawayhi briefly refers to synonymy and homonymy144 but nowhere does he expand on them in the Kitāb. He thus establishes his recognition of the pertinence of these two notions to linguistic study but puts his own limitations on the scope of his work, which is mainly syntactical and morphological in nature with little room for an in-depth examination of other linguistic areas. Also excluded from the Kitāb are aḍdād, or words which simultaneously carry one meaning and its contrary, in spite of the fact that several of Sībawayhi’s contemporaries—such as Qut ̣rub (d. 206/821) and Aṣmaʿī (d. 216/831)—authored extant manuals on this subject, not to mention other contemporary authors to whom

142 For a comparison between Sībawayhi and other grammarians, see chapter IV, sections 2 & 3. 143 Itkonen (1991: 149). 144 Kitāb I, 24.

172

chapter three

similar manuals are ascribed but which have not survived. Another type of semantic enquiry which Sībawayhi excludes is the lexical meaning of words. This is particularly remarkable because of the great interest which his contemporaries had in ġarīb (strange or unfamiliar usage), and although many of Sībawayhi’s šawāhid may be considered as part of the corpus of ġarīb material,145 his interest in these šawāhid is hardly related to the lexical meaning of their words. Furthermore, it is striking that when Sībawayhi quotes examples of rarely used patterns, he shows absolutely no interest in the meaning of the corpus of ġarīb words which illustrate these patterns. In just a few chapters on quadriliterals and quinqueliterals,146 he quotes a large number of such words (e.g. ḫ alğam, šağʿam, sanbata, ğuršuʿ, ṣuntuʿ, kundur, ʿinfiṣ, ḫ irmil, zihliq, ṣiqaʿl, ʿuğāliṭ, ʿukāliṭ, etc.) but totally ignores their lexical meaning. Consequently, these words became book-length material for some later authors147 who merely explain their meaning. Sībawayhi’s exclusion of the lexical dimension from his sphere of interest in the Kitāb is most probably the result of his awareness that it is not organically related to the syntactical and morphological issues which his grammatical theory explores. In this respect, the Kitāb is uniquely different from other contemporary works, such as lexica (cf. Ḫ alīl’s ʿAyn), lexicological treatises (cf. Abū Zayd’s Nawādir and Aṣmaʿī’s risālas on šāʾ, ibil, wuḥ ūš, nabāt, etc.), and linguistically-oriented Qurʾānic commentaries (cf. Farrāʾ’s Maʿānī l-Qurʾān and Aḫfaš’s book with the same title). The importance which Sībawayhi attaches to meaning, particularly at the syntactical level, is reflected in the number of times which the words maʿnā (891; also ʿanā, 136) and arāda (1361) occur in the Kitāb.148 Carter observes that these occur as frequently as the word naḥw (1118).149 As we shall see in the next section of this chapter, maʿnā according to Sībawayhi is directly related to the intention of the speaker and the type of message he wants to impart to the addressee or listener, and is thus part of a wider process of communication which requires analysis. The speaker’s intention is what gives each usage the desired maʿnā, and it is in this context that Sībawayhi’s frequent usage of expressions

145

Cf. above, 44. Kitāb IV, 288 ff. 147 Cf., for example, Zubaydī’s (d. 379/989) Amt̠ilat al-abniya fī Kitāb Sībawayhi and Ibn al-Dahhān’s (d. 569/1174) Šarḥ abniyat Sībawayhi. 148 Troupeau (1976: ʿNY, RWD). 149 Carter (2004: 69). 146

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

173

in which maʿnā is assigned to a certain case-ending, part of speech, particle, notion, etc. can be best understood (cf. the expressions maʿnā l-naṣb, maʿnā l-fiʿl, maʿnā l-fiʿl al-muḍāriʿ, maʿnā l-fāʾ, maʿnā l-tanwīn, maʿnā l-istit̠nāʾ, maʿnā l-taʿağğub, maʿnā l-qasam, maʿnā l-yamīn, maʿnā l-nakira wa-l-tanwīn, maʿnā l-mustafham ʿanhu, etc.).150 Such expressions demonstrate the inseparability of form and meaning and should serve as a reminder that the technical terms which refer to formal aspects— such as raf ʿ, naṣb, ğarr, ğazm, taʿrīf, tankīr, tanwīn, taʾḫīr, ḥ ad̠f, takrīr, etc.—do have distinct semantic functions that are identifiable in context. Hence, the allegation that Sībawayhi’s grammar “lacks any systematic semantic component”151 is groundless and ignores the existence of a strong semantic dimension of the syntactical level, particularly in connection with the speaker’s intention. It is true that Sībawayhi does not formulate a semantic theory in the Kitāb, but neither does he formally define many essential notions related to lafẓ, such as ʿilla, ʿāmil, qiyās, etc. The absence of a clear statement in the semantic dimension of the analysis of structure does not negate Sībawayhi’s concern for meaning as the ultimate expression of the intention of the speaker who uses the various linguistic elements and strategies at his disposal in order to best convey his intention to the listener. The following parts of this section are designated to four essential aspects of the relationship between lafẓ and maʿnā at the syntactical level in the Kitāb. The first of these examines the connection between maʿnā and taqdīr; the second demonstrates how maʿnā can have predominance over lafẓ and grammatical rules; the third establishes the connection between maʿnā and Sībawayhi’s description of usage as qabīḥ , ḥ asan, etc.; and the fourth illustrates the delicate balance between lafẓ and maʿnā in specific pairs of constructions which Sībawayhi discusses: 1. Although taqdīr involves the suppletive insertion of the supposedly missing elements of the construction in order to justify certain syntactical relationships, it certainly has a semantic dimension which Sībawayhi does not fail to take into consideration. As pointed out earlier,152 Sībawayhi normally restores verbs and particles to account for case-endings of the operands (maʿmūlāt)—as in the suppletion of 150 Kitāb I, 320, 310, 194; III, 68; II, 229, 347; I, 328; III, 502, 30; I, 166; II, 313 respectively. 151 Itkonen (1991: 148). 152 Cf. above, 129–130.

174

chapter three

rubba to explain the genitive in wa-baladin—whereas his restoration of nouns is generally intended to reveal an underlying or deep structure which spells out the suppressed elements that are necessary for giving the full range of the meaning of the construction. The reasons that are usually given for elision—namely, taḫfīf or istiḫfāf (lightness), saʿat al-kalām (latitude of speech), and in particular ʿilm al-muḫ āṭab bihi (the listener’s knowledge of an implied element)—presuppose that elision does not impair the successful communication of the intended meaning. In the case of nouns, the introduction of ḥ āğatun in hal laka fī d̠ālika [ḥ āğatun],153 which is meant to show the full structure of the construction, elucidates the original intention of the speaker who then elides ḥ āğatun because the frequency of the construction allows for such elision without impairing the meaning. Similarly, lā [baʾsa/šayʾa] ʿalayka is understood without the noun of lā due to frequent usage.154 In contrast, the introduction of rubba in wa-[rubba] baladin155 is solely related to lafẓ since it is intended to justify the genitive in baladin based on the assumption that wais not a specialized particle and hence cannot govern the genitive. In other words, taqdīr in this case is practiced for purely formal reasons since the meaning of the construction does not necessitate the introduction of rubba, unlike ḥ āğatun and baʾsa whose taqdīr in the other examples has no bearing on the case-ending of any other element in the construction. In certain cases, however, the taqdīr of particles does have a semantic dimension as we shall see in “4” below. The delicate balance between lafẓ and maʿnā with regard to taqdīr can be further illustrated by examining Sībawayhi’s interpretation of the accusative and nominative in nouns which occur in the context of istifhām ( interrogation), amr (command), and nahy (prohibition).156 In a lengthy discussion which extends over several chapters, Sībawayhi starts with the assumption that in these three contexts, the aṣl (here the form which best corresponds to qiyās) is for constructions to begin 153

Kitāb III, 289. Ibid., I, 224; cf. III, 289. 155 Ibid., I, 106. 156 We shall restrict the discussion to these types. Note, however, that similar constructions occur in the context of nafy (negation)—as in mā Zaydan ḍarabtuhu and mā ʿAmran laqītu abāhu (I, 145)—and šarṭ (condition)—as in in Zaydan tarahu taḍrib (I, 134). 154

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

175

with the verb before the noun (wa-kāna l-aṣl fīhā an yubtadaʾ bi-l-fiʿl qabl al-ism) because the verb is indispensable in this case, and if it is not uttered (muẓhar), then it should be assumed (muḍmar).157 As far as the accusative is concerned, Sībawayhi’s interpretation is an extension of his position vis-à-vis constructions which do not indicate istifhām, amr or nahy since he had already established that the deep structure of a statement like Zaydan laqītu aḫāhu is *lābastu Zaydan laqītu aḫāhu.158 The same example appears in the context of istifhām, and the accusative in a-Zaydan laqīta aḫ āhu is interpreted as being due to the ʿamal of the suppressed transitive verb which governs the accusative ( fa-id̠ā awqaʿta ʿalayhi l-fiʿl . . . naṣabtahu; tuḍmir fiʿlan hād̠ā tafsīruhu).159 Obviously, the sole purpose of the suppletion of the verb in affirmative and interrogative constructions alike is to justify the accusative in Zaydan, and Sībawayhi does not refer to any semantic dimension for this suppletion. Similarly related to lafẓ rather than maʿnā is the conviction that an elided transitive verb causes the accusative in the contexts of amr and nahy, as in Zaydan iḍribhu and wa-ammā Ḫ ālidan fa-lā taštum abāhu.160 To stress the merely formal function of taqdīr in Zaydan iḍribhu, it should be noted that in spite of the fact that the uttered verb governs the suffix (iḍribhu mašġūla bi-l-hāʾ) and hence cannot govern Zaydan as well, Sībawayhi argues that since command and prohibition can only be expressed by a verb, the assumption of the verb if it is not uttered is inevitable ( fa-lā yustaġnā ʿan al-iḍmār in lam yaẓhar).161 But this is as far as the lafẓī considerations of taqdīr go. Take for example the construction a-ʿAbdullāhi ḍaraba aḫūhu Zaydan where only the nominative after the interrogative particle is permissible. Sībawayhi justifies the nominative by restoring a verb (suggested by the construction itself) for which ʿAbdullāhi is an agent, hence *a-ḍaraba ʿAbdullāhi ḍ araba aḫ ūhu Zaydan. This restoration is in line with Sībawayhi’s assumption that the interrogative can only be achieved through a verb. Unlike in the accusative, another dimension of Sībawayhi’s analysis is to be found here, and it has to do with meaning. Sībawayhi observes that the nominative in ʿAbdullāhi is commensurate with the nominative in aḫūhu since the latter is related to (min sabab) ʿAbdullāhi—obviously

157 158 159 160 161

Kitāb I, 137; cf. I, 101. Ibid., I, 83; cf. above, 82. Ibid., I, 102; cf. III, 115. Ibid., I, 138. Ibid., I, 144.

176

chapter three

because the suffixed pronoun refers to ʿAbdullāhi—contrary to Zaydan which is an object not related to ʿAbdullāhi (laysa min sababihi).162 He proves his point by shrewdly comparing this construction with a-ʿAbdallāhi ḍaraba aḫāhu ġulāmuhu, where the agent of the verb, ġulām, occupies the position (mawḍiʿ ) of Zayd in the corresponding sentence. In the newly introduced construction, the accusative in ʿAbdallāhi is also commensurate with the accusative in aḫ āhu since the latter is related to (min sabab) ʿAbdallāhi.163 The semantic dimension is also evident in the case of constructions in which the nominative occurs after amr or nahy, as in ʿAbdullāhi ḍribhu where ʿAbdullāhi is nominative due to ibtidāʾ.164 To start with, Sībawayhi finds no need in this case for the restoration of any missing element to justify the nominative since he had already established in his Risāla that ibtidāʾ (topicality) is the first “state” of the noun (al-ism awwal aḥwālihi l-ibtidāʾ) and that any other “state”—that is, the accusative (naṣb), genitive (ğarr), and even the nominative (raf ʿ ) when it is not due to ibtidāʾ—requires an operant to justify it.165 Thus, the lafẓī dimension does not necessitate the grammarian’s intervention to reveal any underlying structure, unlike equivalent constructions with the accusative such as Zaydan iḍribhu. Indeed, Sībawayhi resorts to an essential component of maʿnā, namely, the intention of the speaker, in order to justify the nominative without any taqdīr. He thus argues that ʿAbdullāhi is placed at the beginning of the construction so as to alert the addressee and acquaint him with the name (wa-nabbahta l-muḫāṭab lahu li-tuʿarrifahu bi-smihi). Once this is achieved, the speaker then “constructs” the verb upon the noun (t̠umma banayta l-fiʿl ʿalayhi), that is, he concludes the construction by uttering the predicate. From the perspective of the difference between nominal and verbal sentences, it should be noted that Sībawayhi’s intervention to restore a verb after the interrogative particle or in the context of command and prohibition in order to justify the accusative (since the noun is the direct object of the verb) and the nominative (since the noun is the agent of the verb) shatters the difference between the two types of sentences

162

Ibid., I, 102. Note that ġulāmuhu may also be related to (min sabab) ʿAbdallāhi because of its pronominal suffix, but aḫāhu obviously takes precedence since ʿAbdallāhi is semantically linked to it in the sense that aḫ āhu is the object or patient and ʿAbdallāhi in meaning is also an object rather than an agent. 164 Ibid., I, 138. 165 Ibid., I, 23–24; cf. above, 75–76. 163

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

177

at the level of underlying structure. When sentences like a-ʿAbdallāhi ḍarabtahu and Zaydan iḍribhu166 are analyzed as *a-ḍarabta ʿAbdallāhi ḍarabtahu and *iḍrib Zaydan iḍribhu, the two original nominal sentences are effectively transformed into verbal ones based on the allegation that nominal sentences do not typically begin with the accusative. The semantic consequences are obvious, for whereas in Zaydan iḍribhu the speaker wants to tell the listener that the act of ḍarb—of which the listener is probably cognizant due to context—should have Zayd as its object, the introduction of iḍrib shifts the focal point of interest to the verb, and thus the listener is told what kind of action he should perform on Zayd. Furthermore, the fronting of Zaydan conveys the thought that it is Zayd to the exclusion of others who should be the object of ḍarb. Of course, Sībawayhi is aware of the fact that the underlying structure which he proposes is merely an approximation or a representation of a level which is not uttered in actual speech.167 But it is probably due to his interest in justifying case-endings in such constructions that he fails to highlight the major semantic difference between iḍrib Zaydan and Zaydan iḍribhu as explained above, in spite of the semantically related elements which his discussion includes.168 The significance of the semantic difference between the two sentences is explained by some rhetoricians, particularly Ğurğānī (d. 471/1078), who draws a sharp distinction between constructions which begin with verbs and those which begin with nouns. He explains that a-faʿalta expresses the speaker’s doubt about a certain action (al-šakk fī l-fiʿl nafsihi), whereas a-anta faʿalta expresses his doubt about the doer (kāna l-šakk fī l-fāʿil man huwa).169 This interpretation precludes any restoration of supposedly missing elements because that would lead to a change in the contrastive meaning of each construction. Similarly, in an interrogative context the construction a-Zaydan taḍribu, according to Ğurğānī,

166

Ibid., I, 101, 138. For example, he describes *lābastu Zaydan laqītu aḫ āhu, which he proposes to explain Zaydan laqītu aḫ āhu, as representation which does not feature in speech (tamt̠īl wa-lā yutakallam bihi; I, 83). 168 In contrast, Sībawayhi’s analysis of constructions with am (III, 169–172) is largely based on the semantic difference resulting from the fronting of the noun or the verb. Thus, a-Zaydun ʿindaka am ʿAmrun, in which the noun is fronted, is a question posed by someone who claims that either Zayd or ʿAmr is with the listener but is not sure who. On the other hand, in a-ḍarabta Zaydan am qataltahu and a-ḍarabta am qatalta Zaydan, the verb is fronted because the speaker does not know which act Zayd suffered, and hence the interest lies primarily in the action (i.e. verb) and not in its patient. 169 Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil 87; cf. Baalbaki (1983: 21). 167

178

chapter three

conveys the speaker’s denial of the suitability of hitting Zayd.170 Since this meaning is contingent on the fronting of Zaydan, any attempt by Ğurğānī to supply a verb would result in a drastic change of meaning which does not reflect the speaker’s real intention. 2. The importance of maʿnā for Sībawayhi nowhere manifests itself more than in those cases where it takes precedence over lafẓ. Such cases have to be seen in light of Sībawayhi’s keen interest in preserving the “basic rules” of usage and limiting the deviations which undermine them. These rules mostly belong to the domain of lafẓ, and to acknowledge that they may be overridden due to considerations that have to do with maʿnā clearly points in the direction of a strong semantic component in Sībawayhi’s syntactical analysis. The following two examples will be considered:171 a. Sībawayhi discusses constructions with exceptive illā in which the general term (mustat̠nā minhu) and the thing expected (mustat̠nā) are not of the same type or species (nawʿ ). These are exemplified by mā fīhā aḥ adun illā ḥ imāran (“There is no one there other than a donkey”), in which the Ḥ iğāzīs are reported to use the accusative for the noun that follows illā.172 Some later grammarians report that the accusative is the only possible vocalization in all dialects other than the dialect of Tamīm.173 The accusative is thus the “basic rule” applicable to such constructions since it represents a widespread usage that can be identified with qiyās. This notwithstanding, Sībawayhi justifies the Tamīmī use of the nominative after illā, as in lā aḥ ada fīhā illā ḥ imārun,174 on the grounds that ḥimārun is badal (appositive) in relation to lā aḥ ada.

170 Ibid., 95. It is interesting to note that in the example which Ğurğānī cites, the verb is not followed by a pronominal suffix. Had the construction been a-Zaydan taḍribuhu instead of a-Zaydan taḍribu, it is not clear how he would have explained the accusative without resorting to an elided verb. 171 These examples are part of a wider discussion of meaning-oriented interpretations advanced by grammarians and the relationship between naḥw and ʿilm al-maʿānī in Baalbaki (1991: 94 ff.). 172 Kitāb II, 319. 173 Ušmūnī, Šarḥ I, 229 (hād̠ihi luġat ğamīʿ al-ʿArab siwā Tamīm); cf. Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 266 (taʿayyana l-naṣb ʿind al-ğumhūr) and Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ II, 80. 174 Sībawayhi does not explain in this example how ḥ imārun in the nominative is badal, but it is assumed that lā and its noun have the position of ibtidāʾ (cf. II, 274: lā wa-mā taʿmal fīhi fī mawḍiʿ ibtidāʾ), hence raf ʿ. Cf. also his example lā rağula afḍalu minka (II, 276) where the adjective is in the nominative specifically for this reason.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

179

But he also cites a semantic reason to justify the nominative, namely, that the donkey has been personified (wa-in šiʾta ğaʿaltahu insānahā), in which case there would be no difference in nawʿ, and the rule which stipulates the accusative would no longer apply. The semantic dimension which Sībawayhi explores and through which he defends the anomalous Tamīmī usage is further supported in the discussion of constructions in which ġayru appears instead of illā. Sībawayhi cites Ibn al-Ayham’s line laysa baynī wa-bayna Qaysin ʿitābun * ġayru ṭaʿni l-kulā wa-ḍarbi l-riqābi (“There is no admonishment between me and Qays but kidney stabbing and throat cutting”).175 Since ġayru always assumes the case of the noun after illā in comparable constructions (cf. ğāʾa l-qawmu illā Zaydan and ğāʾa l-qawmu ġayra Zaydin) and because the semantic field of ṭaʿn and ḍarb is different from that of ʿitāb (i.e. they are not of the same nawʿ), the most widespread usage among the Arabs is the accusative for ġayr, hence ġayra (or for the noun after illā had it been used). The occurrence of the nominative ġayru in line with the Tamīmī dialect is explained by Sībawayhi, on the authority of Ḫ alīl, on purely semantic grounds. He argues that Ibn al-Ayham’s line is similar to ʿAmr b. Maʿdī Karib’s line wa-ḫ aylin qad dalaftu lahā bi-ḫ aylin * taḥ iyyatu baynihim ḍarbun wağīʿu (“Oft have I marched with cavalry against cavalry—The [only] greeting they exchange is painful sword blows”), where ḍarb is equated with taḥ iyya (ğaʿala l-ḍarb taḥ iyyatahum), that is, they were taken to be of the same semantic field. Likewise, ṭaʿn and ḍarb in Ibn al-Ayham’s line are interpreted as being semantically compatible with ʿitāb on metaphoric grounds and hence the nominative is justified because ġayru is badal. b. In discussing the relationship between the badal and its antecedent, Sībawayhi notes that the two do not always agree as far as definiteness and indefiniteness are concerned. The construction marartu bi-rağulin ʿAbdillāhi is an example of such disagreement since the proper noun is badal and its antecedent, rağulin, is indefinite. Another possible vocalization is marartu bi-rağulin ʿAbdullāhi, where badal is not an option because ʿAbdullāhi is nominative whereas rağulin is genitive. Sībawayhi typically introduces the independent pronoun huwa as the missing subject of the

175

Ibid., II, 323.

180

chapter three nominal sentence whose predicate is ʿAbdullāhi, and explains that the speaker responds to the hypothetical question man huwa by using the nominative, that is by assuming the presence of huwa in his own utterance.176 One of Sībawayhi’s šawāhid is wa-sāqiyayni mit̠li Zaydin wa-Ğuʿal * saqbāni mamšūqāni maknūzā l-ʿaḍal (“Two cupbearers like Zayd and Ğuʿal, tall, slender and dense of muscle”). Obviously, saqbāni, mamšūqāni and maknūzā, which are in the nominative, agree neither with sāqiyayni nor with the two proper nouns. Although Sībawayhi uses the term ṣifa in the context in which this šāhid occurs,177 it should be noted that this term in its most general usage can describe any type of noun modification178 and may well substitute badal. Irrespective of this ambiguity, we can adopt the position of the Kitāb’s commentators, Sīrāfī (385/995) and Šantamarī (d. 476/1084), both of whom seem to take for granted that saqbāni is a badal which modifies Zaydin and Ğuʿal(a).179 In particular, Šantamarī’s explanation of saqbāni as iḍtị rār (poetic license)—because the accusative in saqbayni and mamšūqayni would be metrically acceptable but maknūzayi l-ʿaḍal would not—misses the spirit of Sībawayhi’s interpretation. To begin with, Sībawayhi does not reject the šāhid which clearly is not in line with the qiyās of modifiers (adjectives or otherwise) from the perspective of case-endings. In fact, he describes the use of saqbāni as aqwā (stronger), and although he does not elaborate on this, the context makes clear that this strength stems from istiʾnāf (resumption, i.e. beginning a new sentence). This new sentence, humā saqbāni, of course, only exists at the level of underlying structure and is due to the taqdīr of the pronoun, but it expresses at the semantic level the interest of the speaker or the listener—depending on the source of the query—in the elucidation of the preceding part of the construction, namely, sāqiyayni or Zaydin and Ğuʿal(a). This interest cannot possibly be expressed by saqbayni, in the genitive, irrespective of whether it is ṣifa or badal, since it does not reflect the internal thinking of

176

Ibid., II, 14–15. Cf. II, 17: wa-lā yakūn ṣifa ka-qawlika marartu bi-rağulin asadin šiddatan li-anna l-maʿrifa lā tūṣaf bihā l-nakira. 178 Cf. Owens (1990: 65). 179 Sīrāfī, Abyāt II, 10–11; Šantamarī, Nukat I, 447–448 and Taḥ sị̄ l 249; cf. Naḥ ḥās, Šarḥ 121–122. 177

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

181

the speaker (if he initiates the hypothetical question man huwa) or the social interaction between him and the listener (if the latter initiates that question). Obviously, the lafẓī rules pertaining to noun modification give way here to meaning as the ultimate reflection of the speaker’s intention. 3. One of the best criteria for assessing the lafẓ/maʿnā dichotomy in the Kitāb is to determine the reasons behind Sībawayhi’s description of usage as qabīḥ , ḍaʿīf, radīʾ, ġayr ğāʾiz, etc. Such negative assessment is often due to formal considerations, but semantic reasons also feature prominently in this aspect of Sībawayhi’s prescriptive approach to usage. There are several examples in which Sībawayhi negatively describes certain phonological and morphological aspects of attested usage. Phonologically, he describes minhim instead of the more regular minhum in the dialect of Rabīʿa as bad (luġa radīʾa).180 Also described as radīʾ is qaraʾ abūka, where the two hamzas are assimilated instead of being left apart (i.e. qaraʾa abūka).181 Morphologically, the use of the singular verb with the plural subject, as in aṣḥ ābuka ğalasa, and of ḫ amsata ʿašaruka, where the compound numeral does not retain its indeclinability (bināʾ), are both described as radīʾ.182 Most of the examples in which Sībawayhi describes usage in negative terms, however, belong to syntax, and the most significant reason for this attitude is their disagreement with qiyās or the “basic rules” of usage. Since we have already encountered numerous cases in which Sībawayhi employs the general notion of “basic rules” to determine the acceptability or unacceptability of usage,183 the following examples are chosen to illustrate a more specific type of norm violation that is linked to usage of which Sībawayhi is critical, namely, the syntactical treatment of a grammatical category, function, etc. in a manner which is not specific to it. a. In two consecutive chapters in which he analyzes constructions which begin with ammā,184 Sībawayhi highlights the difference between the characteristics of the maṣdar (verbal noun, infinitive)

180 181 182 183 184

Kitāb IV, 196. Ibid., IV, 443. Ibid., I, 80; III, 299. In particular, see above, 134 ff. Ibid., I, 384–390.

182

chapter three

and the ism (noun). The model sentence in the case of maṣdar is ammā ʿilman fa-ʿālimun where ʿilman is described as ḥ āl (circumstantial accusative) since the construction is equivalent to anta l-rağulu ʿilman wa-dīnan. When an ism occurs instead of a maṣdar, the nominative is used, hence ammā l-ʿabīdu fa-d̠ū ʿabīdin and ammā l-ʿabdu fa-d̠ū ʿabdin. Sībawayhi ascribes this difference to the fact that nouns do not occur in the position of verbal nouns, as one would say huwa l-rağulu ʿilman wa-fiqhan but not * huwa l-rağulu ḫ aylan wa-ibilan. This principle, which he formulates as follows: al-asmāʾ lā tağrī mağrā l-maṣādir185 (“Nouns do not behave like verbal nouns do”) is violated by some Arabs who, on the authority of Yūnus, say ammā l-ʿabīda fa-d̠ū ʿabīdin, in the accusative, and hence give the noun the treatment of a verbal noun (yuğrūnahu muğrā l-maṣdar sawāʾ). Obviously, Sībawayhi’s description of this usage as ḫ abīt̠ (bad, repulsive) is not merely due to its being qalīl (rare) as well, but is mainly the result of the occurrence of the accusative in asmāʾ, whereas the accusative in this position is linked to the syntactical properties of maṣādir and not asmāʾ. b. Sībawayhi makes a sharp distinction between nakira (indefinite) and maʿrifa (definite) with regard to the position (mawḍiʿ ) which each occupies. More specifically, definite nouns (including adjectives) should not be used as circumstantial accusatives which modify definite nouns, lest they be confused with indefinite nouns which occupy that position (wa-lā yağūz li-l-maʿrifa an takūn ḥ ālan kamā takūn al-nakira fa-taltabis bi-l-nakira).186 Hence, the utterance hād̠ā aḫūka ʿAbdallāhi, in the accusative, is described both as ḫabīt̠ and “misplaced” (yūḍaʿ fī ġayr mawḍiʿihi) in the sense that the proper noun, which is definite, occupies here the position of the indefinite (cf., for example, hād̠ā aḫūka muqbilan). Several other constructions, some of which are reported on the authority of Yūnus and Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, are also criticized by Sībawayhi on the basis of their qubḥ (ugliness). These include hād̠ā Zaydun al-ṭawīla, hād̠ā Zaydun aḫ āka, had̠ā Zaydun aswada l-nāsi, and hād̠ā Zaydun sayyida l-nāsi. In none of these constructions does the definite noun in the accusative match the syntactical charac-

185 186

Ibid., I, 388. Ibid., II, 114.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

183

teristics of definite nouns as Sībawayhi specifies them,187 hence his negative attitude towards them. Interestingly enough, Sībawayhi ends the discussion by succinctly formulating the essence of the problem, that is, the distinction between definite and indefinite vis-à-vis syntactical position: fa-hād̠ā amr al-nakira wa-hād̠ā amr al-maʿrifa fa-ağrihi kamā ağrawhu wa-ḍaʿ kull šayʾ mawḍiʿahu (“Such is the indefinite and such is the definite, so treat them as they [the Arabs] did and accord to each its position”). c. Based on the distinction between the adjective (ṣifa, which confusingly also belongs to the category of ism) and the ism (noun) concerning position (cf. the expression al-ṣifa lā taqaʿ mawāqiʿ al-asmāʾ), Sībawayhi explains why certain constructions are qabīḥ (ugly) while others are not.188 For example, one would say sīra ʿalayhi ṭawīlan or sīra ʿalayhi sayrun ṭawīlun, but to say sīra ʿalayhi ṭawīlun would be qabīḥ because the adjective (i.e. ṭawīl) in such constructions can either be a circumstantial accusative (first example) or modify a noun (second example), but is not strong enough to be on its own (i.e. without the presence of the noun it modifies; cf. tağrī ʿalā ism) and in the nominative at the same time (third example). Equally qabīḥ because the ṣifa is given the syntactical position of the ism are the constructions a-lā māʾa walaw atānī bāridun and ātīka bi-ğayyidin. These are not in line with normal usage which in the latter example, for instance, is ātīka bi-dirhamin ğayyidin where ğayyidin modifies an ism, or ātīka bihi ğayyidan where ğayyidan is a circumstantial accusative. Sībawayhi’s negative assessment of usage is not triggered only by reasons related to lafẓ, as there are numerous examples in which maʿnā is the sole reason for rejection. Other than the previously discussed concept of ʿadam naqḍ al-maʿnā189 (absence of contradiction of meaning) which Sībawayhi implements in assessing usage, particularly in taqdīr, the

187 He specifically mentions three such characteristics of the maʿrifa, namely, that it can be a subject of a nominal sentence on which the rest of the utterance is “constructed” (mabniyy ʿalayhā), or be “constructed” on (mabniyy ʿalā) a noun or something other than a noun, or be an adjective (ṣifa) to a definite noun (II, 114). The following examples (ours) correspond to these three types: (a) al-rağulu qāʾimun, (b) huwa l-rağulu or qāma l-rağulu, and (3) al-rağulu l-qāʾimu (where al-qāʾimu is an adjective). 188 Ibid., I, 227–228. 189 Cf. above, 74.

184

chapter three

following examples illustrate how the lack of observance of meaning is linked to usage of which he is critical: a. In the discussion of verbs which indicate belief (ẓann), such as ẓanantu, ḥ asibtu, ḫiltu, raʾaytu and zaʿamtu, the model sentence is aẓunnu Zaydan munṭaliqan where both nouns are direct objects, hence the accusative.190 But as the title of the chapter indicates (hād̠ā bāb al-afʿāl allatī tustaʿmal wa-tulġā), the regimen of such verbs may be annulled, as in ʿAbdullāhi aẓunnu d̠āhibun and hād̠ā iḫ ālu aḫūka. The criterion for the acceptability of annulment is syntactically determined, the general rule being that the more the verb is deferred, the better the annulment (wa-kullamā aradta l-ilġāʾ fa-l-taʾḫīr aqwā). Conversely, the more the verb is deferred, the less it is able to govern (wa-kullamā ṭāla l-kalām ḍaʿufa l-taʾḫīr id̠ā aʿmalta), as in Zaydan aḫ āka aẓunnu which in this respect is as weak as Zaydan qāʾiman ḍarabtu with a singly transitive verb.191 The same applies to verbal nouns, and hence ẓannī Zaydun d̠āhibun is described as qabīḥ (ugly) and lā yağūz al-batta (absolutely impermissible).192 Sībawayhi’s position is not due to any lafẓī aspect since he had previously established that transitive verbs are able to govern whether they are fronted or not, as in ḍarabtu Zaydan and Zaydan ḍarabtu.193 What he implies is that the fronting of the verb ẓanna (or any of its sisters) or the verbal noun ẓannī is proof of the importance which the speaker attaches to it and this is reflected, at the formal level, in its government as direct objects of the two nouns on which the act of ẓann centers. This is why it would be qabīḥ to annul the regimen when the verb or the verbal noun are fronted. In contrast, the speaker’s deferment of the verb is a signal that he is not primarily concerned with its meaning, and thus the nouns before it take the nominative, as in Zaydun ẓannī aḫūka and Zaydun d̠āhibun ẓannī. Furthermore, constructions like matā taẓunnu ʿAmrun munṭaliqun and matā ẓannuka Zaydun d̠āhibun are described as aḥ san (better), clearly

190 191 192 193

Ibid., I, 118–119. Ibid., I, 120. Ibid., I, 124. Ibid., I, 80–81.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

185

because the occurrence of the interrogative pronoun194 shifts the interest from the “belief ” expressed by taẓunnu and ẓannuka to a context of interrogation. Hence, taẓunnu and ẓannuka do not necessarily govern the two nouns that follow them195 (i.e. ʿAmrun and munṭaliqun; Zaydun and d̠āhibun) since the focus of attention is not the relationship between the act of ẓann and what it affects, but the relationship between these two and what precedes them (cf. li-anna qablahu kalāman), that is, the interrogation. b. Sībawayhi devotes several chapters to verbal nouns that are in the accusative and are not accompanied by an uttered verb (e.g. saqyan wa-raʿyan, ḫaybatan, buʾsan, hanīʾan marīʾan, etc.).196 One of these chapters discusses verbal nouns which do not indicate duʿāʾ (invocation) and whose accusative is ascribed to an elided verb (bāb mā yantaṣib ʿalā iḍmār al-fiʿl al-matrūk iẓhāruhu min al-maṣādir fī ġayr al-duʿāʾ).197 Examples include expressions like ḥ amdan wa-šukran lā kufran wa-ʿağaban, afʿalu d̠ālika wa-karāmatan wa-masarratan wa-nuʿmata ʿaynin, and lā afʿalu d̠āka wa-lā kaydan wa-lā hamman where underlying structure is explained as aḥ madu ḥ amdan, aškuru šukran, ukrimuka karāmatan, etc. In certain cases, however, both the accusative and the nominative are permissible, as in ṣabran ğamīlan and ṣabrun ğamīlun, the first of which is interpreted as *iṣbir ṣabran ğamīlan (“Persevere with graceful patience”!) and the second as al-amru ṣabrun ğamīlun (“It is graceful patience”). Sībawayhi does not only indicate that the two possibilities are acceptable, but he also highlights the fact that they both share the omission of what causes the accusative in the first (i.e. iṣbir) and the nominative in the second (i.e. al-amru).198 Hence, it is not lafẓ which gives preference to the accusative over the nominative or vice versa, and Sībawayhi makes it quite clear that the meaning is the determinant of the better (ağwad) choice.

194 Note that according to Sībawayhi and the grammarians, matā is a noun (ism) and not a particle (ḥ arf ). 195 It is possible, according to Sībawayhi, to maintain government in such constructions, as in matā ẓannuka Zaydan amīran (I, 125). It is implied here that the speaker focuses on the relationship between ẓann and the two following nouns, rather than on interrogation. 196 Ibid., I, 311 ff. 197 Ibid., I, 318–321. 198 Ibid., I, 321; cf. I, 326 where the same idea recurs in connection with salāman and salāmun (wa-tarakū lafẓ mā yarfaʿ kamā tarakū fīhi lafẓ mā yanṣib).

186

chapter three

For example, in the line fa-qālat ḥ anānun mā atā bika hāhunā * a-d̠ū nasabin am anta bi-l-ḥ ayyi ʿārifu (“She said: Mercy [O Lord]! What brings you here? Are you a relative or are you [thoroughly] acquainted with the affairs of [this] neighborhood”?), ḥ anānun is nominative because the speaker does not intend to order the listener to have mercy; otherwise, she would have said ḥ anānan, with an elided imperative verb ḥ inna. Rather, she wants to affirm that the situation at hand is one of ḥ anānun (i.e. amrunā ḥ anānun or mā yuṣībunā ḥ anānun). In contrast, the use of the nominative in the line yaškū ilayya ğamalī ṭūla l-surā * ṣabrun ğamīlun fa-kilānā mubtalā (“My camel complains to me of the long night journeys. I retort: Graceful endurance; we both partake of affliction”) is tolerated, but the accusative is said to be more frequent and better (akt̠ar wa-ağwad) because the speaker wants to order his camel (li-annahu yaʾmuruhu) to be patient, and thus the verbal noun ṣabran, which effectively replaces the imperative verb iṣbir, is a better option. c. Following his analysis of conditional sentences, Sībawayhi discusses several types of constructions which are not introduced by conditional particles but whose correlative (ğawāb) is in the jussive due to their affinity to conditional sentences. Such constructions indicate amr (command), as in iʾtinī ātika, nahy (prohibition), as in lā tafʿal yakun ḫ ayran laka, istifhām (interrogation), as in alā taʾtīnī uḥ addit̠ka, etc., and Sībawayhi adopts Ḫ alīl’s view that their first parts have the meaning of conditional in (anna hād̠ihi l-awāʾil kullahā fīhā maʿnā in).199 The equivalence between in taʾtinī ātika and iʾtinī ātika, for example, is semantically explained: in both constructions ātika is dependent on what precedes it and cannot stand on its own ( ğaʿalūhu muʿallaqan ġayr mustaġnin ʿanhu),200 and command, prohibition, etc., according to Ḫ alīl, have the meaning of the conditional particle in. This explains why Sībawayhi uses the term ğazāʾ to refer to constructions which begin with conditional particles as well as constructions which are interpreted as equivalent in meaning to the conditional (cf. the title of the chapter under discussion: bāb min al-ğazāʾ yanğazim fīhi

199

Ibid., III, 93–94. Cf. also the notion of kalām muʿallaq as it applies to conditional sentences in III, 64. 200

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

187

l-fiʿl). Having established a causal relationship between the ğawāb and what precedes it in both types of constructions, Sībawayhi is now in a position to differentiate between constructions which, at the formal level, may seem alike but whose meanings are quite different. The pair of constructions which he uses to illustrate this—and which have become standard in later works201—is lā tadnu minhu yakun ḫ ayran laka and lā tadnu min al-asadi yaʾkulka.202 The use of the jussive in both constructions is easily justifiable from the perspective of lafẓ, but Sībawayhi resorts to meaning and argues that the first construction is sound whereas the second one is qabīḥ (ugly) because the speaker does not want to say that keeping one’s distance from the lion causes him to be devoured. In other words, the jussive in yaʾkulka indicates that the act of devouring is a direct result of not approaching the lion—a meaning which contradicts the speaker’s intention. If, on the other hand, one uses the indicative or introduces fāʾ—hence, lā tadnu min al-asadi yaʾkuluka/fa-yaʾkuluka—the construction becomes ḥ asan (good), obviously because neither of these suggests that the ğawāb is caused by what precedes it. Finally, it would be of little use to determine whether lafẓ or maʿnā is more often the culprit in passages where Sībawayhi prescriptively describes usage. What is far more important is to establish that he uses both notions to reach similar conclusions and, accordingly, that one cannot deny the existence of a strong semantic dimension in his analysis although it may be less pronounced than the formal aspects which he takes into account. 4. Sībawayhi frequently demonstrates the relationship between lafẓ and maʿnā by examining pairs of constructions which differ in certain aspects of lafẓ and consequently express two different meanings. Other than the example of the lion above, we can mention from the same chapter the pair d̠arhu yaqul d̠āka and d̠arhu yaqūlu d̠āka.203 The first construction conforms to conditional constructions since it is equivalent in meaning to in tad̠arhu yaqul d̠āka, whereas the 201 Cf. Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 83, 135; Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Uṣūl II, 162; Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VII, 48; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 487–488. 202 Kitāb III, 97. 203 Ibid., III, 98.

188

chapter three

second has one of two possible meanings; the first of which is that the person in question has the ability or inclination to say so and so, as is clearly suggested by the introduction of ibtidāʾ, hence d̠arhu fa-innahu yaqūlu d̠āka.204 The other possibility is that the verb has the meaning of the circumstantial accusative, in which case the construction is equivalent in meaning to d̠arhu qāʾilan d̠āka. Several other pairs of expressions are also encountered in the previously mentioned chapters that deal with verbal nouns (maṣādir)—and, to a lesser extent, nouns (asmāʾ)—whose operants are elided. Expressions such as ʿağaban/ʿağabun, maʿd̠iratan/maʿd̠iratun, ṣabran ğamīlan/ṣabrun ğamīlun, subbūḥ an quddūsan/subbūḥ un quddūsun, and waylan lahu/ waylun lahu are explained on the basis of the difference in meaning between the assumption of verbs (e.g. aʿğabu ʿağaban) or nouns (e.g. amrī ʿağabun).205 The best examples of how closely lafẓ is denotative of maʿnā are perhaps those in which Sībawayhi distinguishes between the subjunctive and the indicative, particularly in his discussion of ḥ attā and fāʾ. In the case of ḥ attā, the model sentence is sirtu ḥ attā adḫulahā/adḫuluhā.206 Sībawayhi explains that the subjunctive has one of two meanings. In the first, entering (the city) is shown to be the result of walking, and hence the construction may be translated as “I walked until I entered it”, in the sense that the act of entering did take place. The other meaning connotes that walking took place but that the act of entering did not. The correct translation in this case would be: “I walked in order to enter it (but did not)”. Similarly, sirtu ḥ attā adḫuluhā, in the indicative, can have two distinct meanings, the first of which connotes that entering occurs as one walks, that is, during the process of walking. This meaning, Sībawayhi explains, is similar to the one expressed by the construction huwa yadḫulu wa-huwa yaḍribu (“He enters as he hits”), since in both constructions one action (i.e. entering in the first, and hitting in the second) is still in progress (id̠ā kunta tuḫbir annahu fī ʿamalihi wa-anna ʿamalahu lam yanqaṭiʿ ). Rather than attempt a literal translation of this

204 We introduced fa-innahu in line with Sībawayhi’s proposal of ibtidāʾ to explain the meaning of the construction, and also in line with his own introduction of fainnahu/innahu in similar examples (cf. lā tadnu minhu fa-innahu yaʾkuluka and qum innahu yadʿūka). 205 Ibid., I, 319–321, 327, 330, 333. 206 Ibid., III, 17–18.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

189

sense, one can quote Sībawayhi’s self-explanatory paraphrase sirtu fa-id̠ā anā fī ḥ āli duḫūlin (“I walked, and behold, I am in a state of entering”). The second meaning for which the indicative may be used is that walking took place earlier and, as a result, entering takes place now. Sībawayhi clarifies this meaning by explaining the construction as follows: laqad sirtu ḥ attā adḫuluhā mā umnaʿu which translates as “I have previously walked, so I can now enter it without being hindered”. In the chapter on fāʾ, the model sentence lā/mā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī/ fa-tuḥ addit̠unī is congruent to the above model sentence with ḥ attā because both the subjunctive and the indicative are permissible, and each of them has two possible meanings.207 In the subjunctive, the two meanings are paraphrased by Sībawayhi as follows: mā taʾtīnī fa-kayfa tuḥ addit̠unī (“You do not visit me, so how can you converse with me”?) and mā taʾtīnī abadan illā lam tuḥ addit̠nī ay minka ityānun kat̠īrun wa-lā ḥ adīt̠un minka (“You visit me often, but you do not converse with me”). It is interesting to note here that Sībawayhi justifies the fact that one construction can have two different meanings by producing two other constructions, each of which indisputably has two meanings. Thus, yaʿlamu l-Lāhu (“God knows”; “I swear that . . .”) can have a meaning similar to yad̠habu Zaydun (“Zayd goes”) since both are statements, but can also have the meaning of oath (maʿnā l-yamīn). Similarly, ʿalima l-Lāhu (“God knew”; “I swear that . . .”) can also be a statement like d̠ahaba Zaydun (“Zayd went”) or have the meaning of oath. As far as the indicative is concerned, the first meaning is that of širka (participation) where both verbs are negated and the construction has the sense of mā taʾtīnī wa-mā tuḥ addit̠unī (“You neither visit me nor converse with me”). Having introduced the wāw to replace the fāʾ in the representation of meaning, Sībawayhi demonstrates the parallelism between the two negated verbs since wāw is void of the resultative or consequential dimension of fāʾ and purely conjoins the two verbs which are thus said to be in a širka relationship. The second meaning of the indicative, according to Sībawayhi, may be represented by the introduction of an independent pronoun, hence mā taʾtīnī fa-(anta) tuḥ addit̠unī, which he explains as follows: “You do not visit me, and you are conversing with me now”.208 Similarly, the line attributed to a Ḥ āritī̠ 207 Ibid., III, 30–31. See also Baalbaki (2001: 193–195) where the various meanings of the model sentence are discussed and linked to the theoretical bases which Sībawayhi adopts in this chapter. 208 Cf. Šantamarī, Nukat I, 710.

190

chapter three

ġayra annā lam taʾtinā bi-yaqīnin * fa-nurağğī wa-nukt̠iru l-taʾmīlā (“But you have not presented us with certitude, hence we anticipate and hold out hope”) is interpreted as fa-(naḥ nu) nurağğī, where the verb—as in fa-(anta) tuḥ addit̠unī—is said to be “constructed” on the restored subject ( fa-hād̠ā fī mawḍiʿi mabniyyin ʿalā l-mubtadaʾ). Constructions with ḥ attā and fāʾ share a common lafẓī feature, namely, that an has to be assumed before the subjunctive since, according to the theory, neither ḥ attā nor fāʾ can cause the subjunctive by itself.209 This notwithstanding, the lafẓī element is part and parcel of the semantic interpretation which Sībawayhi offers for the various possibilities of meaning that are linked either to the indicative or the subjunctive. To begin with, it is the presence or absence of an, in Sībawayhi’s representation of meaning, that decides whether the construction has one of the two meanings expressed by the subjunctive or one of the two meanings expressed by the indicative. For instance, in the second meaning of the subjunctive after ḥ attā—i.e. “I walked in order to enter it (but did not)”—the construction is compared to constructions with kay, such as kallamtuhu ḥ attā/kay yaʾmura lī bi-šayʾin (“I spoke to him in order that he directs [his aids] to give me a handout”) since the second verb has not yet been achieved. This semantic similarity is explained on the basis of the taqdīr of an with both ḥ attā and kay. In the case of fāʾ, both meanings associated with the subjunctive in the second sentence lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī are directly linked to the assumption of an which makes the utterance equivalent in meaning to *laysa yakūnu minka ityānun fa-ḥ adīt̠un because an and the verb are thought to be equivalent to a verbal noun.210 Sībawayhi gives further support to his taqdīr by arguing that since fa-tuḥ addit̠anī, in the subjunctive, indicates a semantic shift from taʾtīnī, in the indicative, because fāʾ is not meant to conjoin one verb to another, there has to be a comparable shift at the level of lafẓ, hence the introduction of an which transforms the verb ( fa-tuḥ addit̠anī) into a verbal noun ( fa-ḥ adīt̠un). The balance between lafẓ and maʿnā and the inseparability of the formal and semantic aspects of constructions in Sībawayhi’s grammatical analysis clearly demonstrate that, at this early stage of its development, the study of naḥw embraced subjects which were later assigned to ʿilm 209 The reason given by Sībawayhi is that ḥ attā, like lām, is an operant which governs nouns to the exclusion of verbs (li-anna l-lām wa-ḥ attā innamā yaʿmalāni fī l-asmāʾ fa-yağurrāni wa-laysatā min al-ḥ urūf allatī tuḍāf ilā l-af ʿāl; III, 36). 210 Kitāb III, 28; cf. above, 78.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

191

al-maʿānī—a branch of rhetoric which examines the relationship between lafẓ and maʿnā and how the former expresses the various nuances of the latter. At the risk of resorting to conjecture, it may be argued that the schism between naḥw and maʿānī may not have taken place had the grammarians upheld Sībawayhi’s methods of analysis which organically link lafẓ to maʿnā; yet the general trend was to give more weight to formal aspects of the analysis of structure than to the examination of meaning. Based on Sībawayhi’s approach, it is not surprising that Abū Ḥ ayyān al-Andalusī al-Ġirnātị̄ (d. 745/1344), in the introduction to his lengthy commentary on the Qurʾān, confidently declares that anyone who aspires to be well-versed in exegesis (ʿilm al-tafsīr)—which by definition entails thorough examination of meaning and the semantic effects that may be ascribed to the formal peculiarities of the Qurʾānic text—has to apply himself diligently to the study of Sībawayhi’s Kitāb as the reliable and authoritative source which should be referred to in tackling the difficulties which this branch of study poses.211 5. The Role of the Speaker and Listener One of the most distinctive features of the Kitāb is the role which its author assigns to the mental operations performed by the speaker (mutakallim) in order to best communicate the intended meaning of his utterance, and to his responsibility toward the listener or addressee (muḫ āṭab) who for his part is expected to analyze speech properly as a condition for successful communication. As pointed out in the previous section, the absence from the Kitāb of a clear description of the semantic dimension of the analysis of structure is matched by a keen interest in examining the meaning of constructions and, more specifically, demonstrating the relationship between form (e.g. case-endings, nominal versus verbal constructions, etc.) and meaning. Sībawayhi’s analysis of language as social behavior which takes place in a defined context and his attempt to reconstruct the internal thinking of the speaker in deciding what formal aspects of the utterance can best express his intentions are among the most essential features which make the Kitāb so unique in the Arabic grammatical tradition and gives it a real value in the history of linguistic ideas. Although later grammarians largely

211

Abū Ḥ ayyān, Baḥ r I, 3.

192

chapter three

adopt Sībawayhi’s methods of analysis, their work generally does not only lack the originality of the Kitāb but also considerably shifts the focus of grammatical analysis from the social interaction between the speaker and the listener within a specific context to the formal relationships among the various parts of the utterance. The lively and dynamic linguistic analysis which is so obvious in the Kitāb thus gave way to a largely uninspiring approach which, even when it adopts Sībawayhi’s conclusions and reproduces his šawāhid, fails to maintain his insight into the pragmatic role which he ascribes to the speaker, the listener, and the context in which speech takes place. Along the same lines, Bohas et al argue that from a typological perspective “grammatical and linguistic systems can be divided into two rough classes: on the one hand, those which analyse utterances in terms of formal relationships between their components; on the other hand, those which analyse them in terms of operations performed by the speaker in order to achieve a specific effect on the allocutee”.212 They conclude that “Sībawayhi’s approach basically belongs to the latter category, while that of classical grammarians typically belongs to the former”. This notwithstanding, there have been a few attempts by later grammarians to restore to grammatical study a central role for meaning within the wider context of the interaction between the speaker and the listener. These attempts will be discussed in some detail,213 but it is to be noted that they certainly are not part of the mainstream approach that characterizes later works. It is convenient to begin by examining the wording which Sībawayhi uses in referring to the speaker. Throughout the Kitāb, and particularly in connection with syntax, the various characteristics of usage and the relationships that govern the components of the utterance are ascribed to the speaker. This may seem a foregone conclusion given that the speaker is the “producer” of the “product” called speech, so to say, but the core of the issue is Sībawayhi’s interest in revealing the speaker’s thinking and intentions which lie behind the linguistic phenomena under discussion, and in assessing the effect of the social context on the process of speech communication. In this sense, the role of the analyst is to trace the mental operations which accompany the utterance and, accordingly, interpret its formal characteristics and explain the relationship between the surface structure and the intended meaning by proposing—as we

212 213

Bohas et al. (1990: 38). See chapter IV, section 5.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

193

explained in the previous section—an underlying structure that restores supposedly elided elements. Judging by Sībawayhi’s phrasing, virtually all the characteristics of the utterance are determined by the speaker (more often referred to by addressing the reader himself as the potential speaker) or are a direct result of the choices he makes. The speaker thus decides the meaning of the utterance (cf. fīmā turīd min al-maʿnā “concerning the meaning you intend”; li-mā ḥtağta ilayhi min al-maʿānī “due to the meanings you need [to express]”);214 the tense of the verb and the verbal derivatives (cf. wa-adḫ alta kāna li-tağʿal d̠ālika fīmā maḍā “and you introduced kāna to indicate past tense”; fa-id̠ā aradta fīhi min al-maʿnā mā aradta fī yafʿalu kāna munawwanan nakira “but if you want it [i.e. the active participle] to express the same meaning as the imperfect, it has to be nunated and indefinite”);215 the syntactical order, and in particular hysteron-proteron (cf. wa-d̠ālika qawluka kusiya ʿAbdullāhi l-t̠awba . . . wa-in šiʾta qaddamta wa-aḫ ḫ arta fa-qulta kusiya l-t̠awba Zaydun “and this is your saying kusiya ʿAbdullāhi l-t̠awba . . . but if you wish you can reverse the order and say kusiya l-t̠awba Zaydun”; taqūl kāna ʿAbdullāhi aḫ āka . . . wa-in šiʾta qulta kāna aḫ āka ʿAbdullāhi fa-qaddamta wa-aḫ ḫ arta “You say kāna ʿAbdullāhi aḫ āka . . . but if you wish you say kāna aḫ āka ʿAbdullāhi by reversing the order”);216 the number of uttered direct objects of doubly transitive verbs (cf. fa-in šiʾta qtaṣarta ʿalā l-mafʿūl al-awwal wa-in šiʾta taʿaddā ilā l-t̠ānī kamā taʿaddā ilā l-awwal “and if you wish you can restrict yourself to the first object, but you may wish that it [i.e. the verb] should pass on to the second object as it passed on to the first”);217 the government, or lack thereof, of a certain particle (cf. fa-in ğaʿalta mā bi-manzilat laysa fī luġat ahl al-Ḥ iğāz lam yakun illā l-raf ʿ “and if you give mā the status of laysa in the Ḥ iğāzī dialect, only the nominative would be permissible”);218 uttering a certain otiose element (wa-huwa qawluka marartu bihim al-ğammāʾa l-ġafīra . . . wa-zaʿama l-Ḫ alīl . . . annahum adḫ alū l-alif wa-l-lām fī hād̠ā l-ḥ arf ʿalā niyyat mā lā tadḫuluhu l-alif wa-l-lām “and it is your saying al-ğammāʾa l-ġafīra . . . and Ḫ alīl . . . claimed that they introduced the

214 215 216 217 218

Kitāb I, 14, 236. Ibid., I, 45, 164. Ibid., I, 41–42, 45. Ibid., I, 37. Ibid., I, 146.

194

chapter three

definite article into this expression intending [to treat it like] those expressions that are not prefixed by the article”);219 etc. The importance of the impersonal use of the pronoun anta (“you”) and the various other types of reference to the speaker notwithstanding, the best proof of Sībawayhi’s ascription of linguistic phenomena to the intention of the speaker (who is aware of the available strategies that can best express it) is the strong link in his grammatical analysis between lafẓ and maʿnā. This is particularly evident in the pairs of constructions in which a distinctive feature in form is semantically significant. As pointed out in the previous section, the difference between the subjunctive and the indicative in constructions with ḥ attā (e.g. sirtu ḥ attā adḫulahā/adḫuluhā) and fāʾ (e.g. lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī/fa-tuḥ addit̠unī) is matched in each case by the different meanings that are associated with the chosen case-ending. Other than the wording which Sībawayhi uses in discussing these constructions, and which persistently refers to the speaker(s) or to the reader himself (e.g. an tağʿal, kaʾannaka qulta, taʿnī annahu, id̠ā kunta tuḫbir, fa-id̠ā qāla . . . fa-kaʾannahu yaqūl, lam turid an, lammā ḥ awwalta, nawaw an yakūn, wa-in šiʾta ašrakta, ṣarafūhu ʿan hād̠ā l-ḥ add),220 the whole discussion focuses on the speaker’s consciousness of a process of “decision making” on which successful communication hinges. Based on the intended meaning, the speaker has to decide which case-ending to use since the listener will link that case-ending to a specific meaning, and hence the wrong choice of lafẓ will almost certainly result in the failure of the communication. As Carter notes, speech according to Sībawayhi is a “series of actions, and the evidence for this is that every ‘way of speaking’ is designated in the Kitāb by a verbal noun”.221 These verbal nouns refer both to acts and concepts (although Carter’s translation emphasizes that they are acts, not concepts), and it may be argued that each of them represents a process of decision making undertaken by the speaker to express a desired meaning. For example, the term nafy not only means “negation” but also “negating” or “act of negation”, and the term iḍāfa not only means “annexion” but also “annexing” or “act of annexion”, and so on. The speaker thus initiates the desired act or acts—such as ibtidāʾ (inception; also topicality), iḫbār (enunciation), nidāʾ (vocation),

219 220 221

Ibid., I, 375. Ibid., III, 17, 28, 30–31. Carter (2004: 77; cf. 56–57).

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

195

waṣf (qualification), taʿağğub (admiration), istifhām (interrogation), ʿaṭf (conjoining), iḍmār (suppression), etc.—and formulates his utterance or each of its constituents by using the proper formal traits that are specific to the act or acts he has in mind. It is within this context that Sībawayhi’s method of reconstructing the mental operations performed by the speaker should be firmly placed. Accordingly, fundamental notions like taqdīr (suppletive insertion), tamt̠īl (representation), ḥ ad̠f (omission), isnād (predication), qiyās (analogy), ilġāʾ (annulment), etc. may be considered as tools according to which Sībawayhi probes those mental operations and interprets the formal aspects of utterances. One of the most basic components of Sībawayhi’s grammatical theory, namely, ʿamal (government), may be examined from the perspective of the role of the speaker. Sībawayhi employs two methods in relationship to ʿamal: he either ascribes it to a specific (uttered or elided) element of the construction or to the speaker himself. 222 Of the first type are expressions like wa-qad ʿamilat al-bāʾ (“and the bāʾ governs [what follows it]”), fa-l-ʿāmil fīhi l-ibtidāʾ (“and what governs it [i.e. the topic] is topicality”), wa-l-lām wa-ḥ attā innamā yaʿmalāni fī l-asmāʾ fa-yağurrāni (“and lām and ḥ attā do govern nouns causing them to be in the genitive”), šabbahūhā bi-an id̠ā aʿmalūhā muḍmara (“They likened it [i.e. li- of command] to an which they cause to govern when elided”), etc.223 On the other hand, each of the four terms which express declension—two of which, raf ʿ and naṣb, are used for both nouns and verbs—are often associated with the intention of the speaker and not with the particular ʿāmil (operant, governor). Hence, the speaker causes raf ʿ (nominative), as in wa-taqūl mā ʿAbdullāhi ḫ āriğan wa-lā Maʿnun d̠āhibun tarfaʿuhu (“and you say mā ʿAbdullāhi ḫ āriğan wa-lā Maʿnun d̠āhibun by using the nominative [i.e. in d̠āhibun]”); raf ʿ (indicative), as in ʿArabiyy yarfaʿ sirtu ḥ attā adḫuluhā (“an Arab who uses the indicative in sirtu ḥ attā adḫuluhā”); naṣb (accusative), as in wa-id̠ā qulta Zaydun laqītu aḫāhu fa-huwa ka-d̠ālika wa-in šiʾta naṣabta (“and if you say Zaydun laqītu aḫ āhu, then it is [in the nominative] as well; but if you wish, you can use the accusative”); naṣb (subjunctive), as in wa-man zaʿama anna l-afʿāl tartafiʿ bi-l-ibtidāʾ fa-innahu yanbaġī lahu an yanṣibahā id̠ā kānat fī mawḍiʿ yantaṣib fīhi l-ism (“and he who claims that verbs are in the indicative due to topicality should cause

222 223

Cf. Owens (1988: 63–64). Kitāb I, 92, 127; III, 6, 8 respectively.

196

chapter three

them to be in the subjunctive if their position is that of a noun in the accusative”); ğarr (genitive), as in fa-in aradta an taqūl . . . ğararta (“but if you mean . . ., you should use the genitive”); and ğazm (jussive), as in wa-in šiʾta ğazamta ʿalā awwal al-kalām (“and if you wish, you can use the jussive on the basis of the beginning of the utterance”).224 The two types of formulation are not mutually exclusive in the sense that it is the speaker who intends to use a certain declension for a specific purpose and hence utters the appropriate particle, etc. which governs an operand (maʿmūl). In other words, the lafẓī aspects of ʿamal express the maʿnā intended by the speaker, and thus the analyst can formulate this relationship in terms of operants which govern operands resulting in a specific meaning, as well as in terms of a speaker who initiates ʿamal for a specific semantic purpose. Ibn Ğinnī (d. 392/1002) seems to have been fully aware of the two types of formulation available to Sībawayhi and the other grammarians. According to him, however, the truth of the matter ( fī l-ḥ aqīqa) is that government is ascribable to the speaker and nothing else ( fa-l-ʿamal min al-raf ʿ wa-l-naṣb wa-l-ğarr wa-l-ğazm innamā huwa li-l-mutakallim nafsihi lā li-šayʾ ġayrihi).225 It goes without saying that all linguistic phenomena are ascribable to the one who initiates the utterance, but the question is whether the grammarian is mainly concerned with what the speaker aims at in causing ʿamal or with operants as merely formal phenomena whose ʿamal may be examined with little or no concern for the speaker’s intention. As far as Sībawayhi is concerned, it is important to note that even when he refers to particles, verbs or nouns as operants, he frequently considers the speaker to be the ultimate agent that allows them to cause ʿamal or prevents them from so doing, as in the following examples: 1. In explaining why the subject of the passive verb is in the nominative although it is a direct object in meaning, he refers to the speaker who did not cause the verb to be occupied with another operand and hence the verb became fully occupied with its subject (li-annaka lam tašġal al-fiʿl bi-ġayrihi wa-farraġtahu lahu).226 2. He cites a number of expressions in which the preposition is allegedly elided, causing the noun after it to be in the accusative rather

224 225 226

Ibid., I, 60; III, 21; I, 83; III, 11; I, 69; III, 34 respectively. Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 109–110. Kitāb I, 33.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

197

than the genitive. The term which the later grammarians use with regard to such nouns is manṣūb ʿalā nazʿ al-ḫ āfiḍ (accusative due to the elision of the preposition), and it offers a good explanation of Sībawayhi’s interpretation. That the verb governs the accusative in constructions such as amartuka l-ḫ ayra—whose proposed origin is amartuka bi-l-ḫ ayri—is according to Sībawayhi due to the speakers’ omission of the preposition, thus allowing the verb to take a direct object ( fa-lammā ḥ ad̠afū ḥ arf al-ğarr ʿamila l-fiʿl).227 3. Having established that conditional particles cause the verb to be in the jussive (wa-ʿlam anna ḥ urūf al-ğazāʾ tağzim al-af ʿāl),228 he assigns to the speaker the ultimate choice between maintaining that ʿamal and annulling it (cf. the expression ad̠habta l-ğazāʾ), as in inna man yaʾtīnī ātīhi where both the protasis and the apodosis are in the indicative.229 It ought to be clear by now that Sībawayhi is more interested in the relationship between ʿamal and the intention of the speaker than in the merely formal aspects related to ʿamal. This is supported by the fact that the Kitāb, unlike many later works—or even relatively early works such as the Muqaddima attributed to Ḫ alaf al-Aḥmar (d. 180/796)—is not arranged according to the types of operants (ʿawāmil) although certain topics are grouped together based on similarity of case (e.g. accusative).230 This is a reflection of how little interest Sībawayhi shows in an intricate classification of operants, contrary to his keen interest in the influence of the speaker’s intention on the form an utterance takes. An essential part of the speaker’s competence in Sībawayhi’s analysis is what we can call the linguistic awareness which the speaker demonstrates in communicating the intended meaning to the listener. What linguistic awareness means in this context is the alertness of the speaker to the different strategies and tools which are available to him and his ability to use them efficiently. Among the most telling examples in the Kitāb are those in which the speaker is shown to be aware of the difference between using a compound particle as a single entity or breaking it down to its two components. We can borrow from the later grammarians the terms lamḥ al-aṣl and ʿadam lamḥ al-aṣl (lit. recognition/ 227 228 229 230

Ibid., I, 38. Ibid., III, 62. Ibid., III, 71. See above, 92.

198

chapter three

non-recognition of origin) to refer to this phenomenon.231 In a chapter entitled bāb iğrāʾihim d̠ā waḥ dahu bi-manzilat allad̠ī (“a chapter on treating d̠ā by itself as having the status of allad̠ī”),232 Sībawayhi discusses the use of mād̠ā (and mand̠ā) either as a particle that has the status of a single word (bi-manzilat ism wāḥ id) or as a particle that is made up of two separate elements (mā + d̠ā; man + d̠ā), the second of which, d̠ā, has the status of the relative pronoun allad̠ī. Although Sībawayhi does not mention the semantic or intonational difference between the two options, it may be useful to suggest (1) that mād̠ā faʿalta and mā d̠ā faʿalta best translate as “What have you done”? and “What is this that you have done”? respectively, and (2) that in actual speech the singleword mād̠ā would normally receive stress on its first syllable, whereas its separation into two elements would be indicated by a stronger stress on d̠ā than on mā, in an attempt to underline the demonstrative function of mā. But irrespective of these two differences, the speaker’s correct use of the particle presupposes his awareness of the two choices that are available to him. Furthermore, the speaker has to realize the syntactical implications of his choice, for he has to use the accusative in the noun which follows mād̠ā as a single entity, whereas the nominative should be used in the noun which follows mā d̠ā in which d̠ā enjoys the independent status of the relative pronoun. For example, in Labīd’s line alā tasʾalāni l-marʾa mā d̠ā yuḥ āwilu * a-naḥ bun fa-yuqḍā am ḍalālun wa-bāṭilu (“O! Would you not ask man what is this that he attempts: Is it a vow to be fulfilled or [merely] delusion and vanity”?), mā by itself is the interrogative pronoun and d̠ā is a demonstrative pronoun equivalent to allād̠ī. Consequently, the corroborative noun naḥ bun is in the nominative because it modifies mā which has the grammatical function of the subject of a nominal sentence (i.e. topic or mubtadaʾ) and hence is nominative. The other possibility is that mād̠ā could have been treated as a single interrogative particle, in which case it would have been a direct object of the transitive verb yuḥ āwilu and would

231

The two terms are perhaps best known in the grammarians’ discussion of proper nouns such as al-Faḍl, al-Ḥ asan, al-Ḥ ārit ̠, al-Nuʿmān, etc. which are prefixed by the definite article, contrary to the norms of proper nouns, because the speaker recognizes their origins as infinitives, adjectives, active participles, substantives, etc. (cf. Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 91; Ušmūnī, Šarḥ I, 85–86). Our own use of the term lamḥ al-aṣl in connection with the splitting of mād̠ā into two separate elements is justified on the basis of the fact that this is contingent on the speaker’s awareness of the etymology of this compound particle. 232 Kitāb II, 416–419.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

199

have caused the corroborative naḥ ban to be in the accusative as well.233 We shall later discuss the role of the listener vis-à-vis the speaker’s use of mād̠ā versus his use of mā and d̠ā separately. The notion of tawahhum (lit. illusion) is also important in relation to what we called the speaker’s linguistic awareness. The term has largely acquired a negative connotation in the philological tradition probably because its literal meaning suggests the presence of an illusion or a false impression. It occurs in works which deal with laḥ n (solecism) where it is associated with usage which is branded as erroneous but is often widespread.234 In particular, Ḥ arīrī (d. 516/1122) uses the term wahm (pl. awhām) as equivalent to ġalaṭ, ḫ aṭaʾ and laḥ n,235 and even describes usage involving wahm as šanīʿ, mustahğan and šāʾin,236 refers to it pejoratively by words such as mafāḍiḥ , mafāḥ iš and maʿāyib,237 and contrasts it to al-ṣawāb, al-afṣaḥ , wağh al-kalām and al-iḫtiyār.238 Far from adhering to such a prescriptive approach, Sībawayhi almost uniformly judges tawahhum as a legitimate process in speech formulation and tries to uncover the reasons behind its application by the speaker. There are three main meanings of the term in the Kitāb, all of which demonstrate Sībawayhi’s method of analyzing the internal thinking of the speaker to explain attested usage:239 1. The speaker’s comprehension or interpretation of the function of a certain word, thus giving rise to the treatment it is allotted. Both Tamīmīs and Ḥ iğāzīs are said to have applied tawahhum in their use of constructions in which ammā is followed by a verbal noun.240 The Tamīmīs say ammā ʿilman fa-ʿālimun in the accusative because they comprehend or interpret (yatawahhamūna) ʿilman as a ḥ āl (circumstantial accusative). This, however, ceases to be the case if they use the definite article since ḥ āl usually occurs in indefinite nouns. They thus say ammā l-ʿilmu fa-ʿālimun in the nominative. 233 Cf. Baalbaki (2007b: 17–19). In the case of mā d̠ā raʾayta, it is implied that the direct object of the verb is the nominal sentence made up of interrogative mā and relative d̠ā. 234 Cf. Zubaydī, Laḥ n 19; Ibn Makkī, Tat̠qīf 123, 191, 299. 235 Ḥ arīrī, Durra 4, 16, 48, 93, 116, 129, 140, 157, 252. 236 Ibid., 48, 51, 93 respectively. 237 Ibid., 48, 93, 116, 212 respectively. 238 Ibid., 173–174, 231, 253, 278 respectively. 239 See a more detailed study of the term tawahhum in the Kitāb and elsewhere in Baalbaki (1982: 233–244). 240 Kitāb I, 384–387.

200

chapter three

Contrarily, the Ḥ iğāzīs do use the accusative with the verbal noun prefixed by the definite article, as in ammā l-ʿilma fa-ʿālimun, because they interpret al-ʿilma as something other than ḥ āl (li-annahum qad yatawahhamūna fī hād̠ā l-bāb ġayr al-ḥ āl). Thus, it is the speaker’s own perception of the function of the word under question that determines its case-ending. Because the Tamīmīs do not seem to interpret the verbal noun after immā to be anything other than ḥ āl (kaʾannahum lā yatawahhamūna ġayrahu), they intentionally avoid this very interpretation in al-ʿilm as that would lead to the accusative being used with a ḥ āl that is definite. The process of tawahhum is therefore part of the “logic” which the speaker applies in order to decide which case-ending is appropriate in a specific context. 2. The speaker’s mental restoration of unuttered parts, resulting in their government of actually uttered parts. For example, in the construction marartu bihi fa-id̠ā lahu ṣawtun ṣawta ḥ imārin/ṣurāḫun ṣurāḫ a l-t̠aklā, the speaker mentally restores (tawahhama) the verb yuṣawwitu, yubdīhi, yuḫriğuhu, or the like, and accordingly uses the accusative for ṣawta and ṣurāḫ a as direct objects of the presumed verb.241 This sense of the term is supported by Sībawayhi’s use of aḍmara (suppress) along with tawahhama to express the view that, in spite of the absence of the verb from the surface structure, it is part of the underlying structure which, through a process of taqdīr, reveals the virtual presence of the verb in the speaker’s mind and explains why the accusative is used. 3. The analogy (qiyās) supposed by the speaker between two different forms or patterns, resulting in the extension of the treatment of one of them to the other. Obviously, the link which Sībawayhi establishes between the notion of qiyās (also taqdīr as in 2 above) and tawahhum confirms the latter as a legitimate tool to which the speaker resorts in formulating utterances. The sense of analogy is clear in his interpretation of the pattern faʿlā when it is used for the plural forms halkā (mortal), mawtā (dead), marḍā (sick), and ğarbā (scabby). This pattern is mostly, though not exclusively, used for the plural of adjectives whose singular is of the pattern faʿīl having the meaning of the passive participle mafʿūl (e.g. qatīl, ğarīḥ , ʿaqīr, asīr, etc.). It is also used as the plural form of some faʿīl adjectives which have the meaning of the active participle fāʿil (e.g. marīḍ) or

241

Ibid., I, 356–357.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

201

as the plural form of adjectives whose pattern in the singular is not faʿīl (e.g. hālik and aḥ maq of the pattern fāʿil and af ʿal respectively). Since marīḍ and hālik, for example, express a state that is forced on the individual against his choice, the speakers assume the presence of analogy (tawahhamū) between these words and adjectives which express the meaning of maf ʿūl and which correspond to verbs in the passive (cf. qutila/maqtūl and ğuriḥ a/mağrūḥ ). Based on this analogy, the speakers use marḍā, halkā, etc. as the plural of marīḍ, hālik, etc. although there is no such verb as *muriḍa or *hulika.242 Sībawayhi’s analysis of speech also recognizes the active participation of the listener or addressee (muḫ āṭab) as a condition for successful communication. This is a result of his interest in the spoken, rather than the written, form of language. Not only does he hardly ever mention written style, but he discusses phenomena which can only be relevant to actually spoken language, such as the forms peculiar to waqf (pause), the rules pertaining to imāla (fronting and raising of long and short fatḥ a), and the badal (apposition) which he associates with afterthought (ġalaṭ and nisyān, lit. error and forgetfulness). The latter is mentioned on a few occasions243 and is said to occur with nouns, as in marartu bi-rağulin ḥ imārin (“I passed by a man [I mean] a donkey”) as well as with verbs, as in in taʾtinā tasʾalnā nuʿṭika (“If you come to us [I mean] ask us, we will give you”). Obviously, this can only occur in actual speech,244 and Sībawayhi’s expression kaʾannahu nasiya t̠umma tadāraka kalāmahu (“as if he [the speaker] forgot but then amended his speech”)245 confirms this interpretation. In his analysis of spoken language, Sībawayhi portrays speech communication as a dynamic process which involves interaction between the speaker and the listener and which is directly influenced by the context in which it takes place. Before examining the effect the listener has on the speaker’s utterance and the competence of the listener in interpreting that utterance, it is essential to note that Sībawayhi is keen to consider the effect of the context of situation on the utterance. The following examples are among the most telling:246

242 243 244 245 246

Ibid., II, 42; III, 648. Ibid., I, 152, 434, 439; II, 16, 341; III, 87. Cf. Carter (2004: 57–58). Kitāb III, 87. For further examples, cf. Ḫ ālidī (2006: 30–69).

202

chapter three

1. You would address someone whom you want to approach you by the expression yā fulānu, but once that person approaches you (or faces you; id̠ā kāna muqbilan ʿalayka) and listens to you (munṣitan laka), there would be no need for the vocative and you would hence address him by anta tafʿalu without yā fulānu. This is similar, Sībawayhi argues, to using ruwaydaka when you want to specify one individual among many, whereas the suffix would be dropped (hence ruwayda) when the addressee knows that it is he, and not anyone else, who is being addressed.247 2. It would be absurd (muḥ āl) for someone whom you know to address you by saying anā ʿAbdullāhi munṭaliqan or huwa Zaydun munṭaliqan since the use of the independent pronoun implies that the addressee knows who is meant. But if you ask someone who is behind a wall (ḫ alfa ḥ āʾiṭ) or is in a location of which you are ignorant, then the construction anā ʿAbdullāhi munṭaliqan fī ḥ āğatika (“I am ʿAbdullāhi [in a state of] hurrying to [attend to] your need”) would be good (ḥ asan).248 The use of the independent pronoun in the latter case is dictated by the context since you do not know who the person that you are addressing is. 3. The construction a-qāʾiman wa-qad qaʿada l-nāsu (“Are you [in a state of] standing up while the people are sitting”!) in which no verb is used before the accusative (since the underlying structure is assumed to be *a-taqūmu qāʾiman . . .) is justified on the basis of the visual context since the speaker sees that the addressee is performing the act of qiyām and thus drops the verb which becomes practically superfluous (ḥ ad̠afa stiġnāʾan bi-mā yarā min al-ḥ āl).249 4. The visual context also justifies your saying Zaydan without a verb if you see (raʾayta) someone who is performing the act of hitting, cursing or killing since it is obvious that the act being performed is what you desire to be inflicted upon Zayd, and thus the act itself is enough for you (iktafayta), so you do not have to utter the verb.250 Similarly, if you see (raʾayta) someone saying aḍribu šarra l-nāsi (“I hit the worst of people”), you may respond by saying Zaydan without a verb, and if you see (raʾayta) someone talking but then interrupting his speech, you may respond by saying ḥ adīt̠aka (“your 247 248 249 250

Kitāb I, 244. Ibid., II, 80–81. Ibid., I, 340. Ibid., I, 253.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

203

utterance”) also without a verb.251 Expressions such as Makkata warabbi l-Kaʿbati (“[He is heading to] Mecca, I swear by the Lord of the Kaʿba”) and al-qirṭāsa wa-l-Lāhi (“[He hit] the target, I swear by God”)252 are also justified on the basis of the visual context which Sībawayhi indicates by the verb raʾayta. 5. If you see someone who has come back from travel, you can say qadimta ḫ ayra maqdamin (lit. “best arrival”, i.e. “most welcome”). In analyzing this construction, Sībawayhi justifies the speaker’s use of qadimta by arguing that it is in response to the assumed utterance by the listener of qadimtu, since the fact that he has come and that you see him is equivalent to uttering that verb ( fa-inna qudūmahu wa-ruʾyatahu iyyāhu bi-manzilat qawlihi qadimtu).253 The above examples clearly demonstrate that the context of situation can make certain parts of the utterance redundant, and that the speaker’s utterance is inevitably influenced by his assumption that the listener has virtually addressed him by certain words. Just as the speaker assumes that the listener said qadimtu (in the fifth example above), he may say marartu bi-rağulayni muslimun wa-kāfirun (“I passed by two men: a Muslim and an unbeliever”, where the two qualifiers are in the nominative instead of the more regular genitive) due to his assumption that the listener has asked him, once he has heard bi-rağulayni being uttered, fa-mā humā (“What are they”?). Sībawayhi asserts that this construction is the result of the assumed, but unuttered question of the listener ( fa-l-kalām ʿalā hād̠ā wa-in lam yalfiẓ bihi l-muḫ āṭab) because the speaker forms his speech in accordance with the question which he expects the listener to ask.254 Consequently, there is an element of responsibility on the part of the speaker towards his listener in the sense that the speaker should take the listener’s expectations into account and interpret them, along with the context of situation, as actually uttered words which affect the form his utterance should take. The speaker’s responsibility towards his listener is also highlighted in other respects, the most notable of which is that the latter expects the utterance to contain useful information (cf. the later grammatical term mufīd “useful”) which he can relate to what he already knows. For 251 252 253 254

Ibid., loc. cit. Ibid., I, 257, 295. Ibid., I, 270. Ibid., I, 431.

204

chapter three

example, both constructions kāna Zaydun ḥ alīman and kāna ḥ alīman Zaydun are permissible: in the first you start by mentioning Zayd who is (or becomes) known to the listener and then you inform him that Zayd is ḥ alīm, and in the second you start by informing him of a certain attribute (i.e. ḥ alīm) and he thus expects you to specify the one to whom it applies ( fa-innamā yantaẓir an tuʿarrifahu ṣāḥ ib al-ṣifa).255 On the other hand, it is impermissible to begin with the indefinite by saying kāna ḥ alīmun or kāna rağulun because it is improper (lā yastaqīm) to inform your listener about something that is unknown (mankūr) to him.256 As Sībawayhi explains, the indefinite is associated with labs (ambiguity) and should therefore not be in the syntactical position of a mubtadaʾ, in order to avoid a situation where the predicate informs the speaker about something that is ambiguous to him. The notion of labs or iltibās is a major criterion by which Sībawayhi judges the permissibility of utterances, obviously because he believes that it is the responsibility of the speaker to stay clear of any utterance that can cause ambiguity or confusion. Hence, constructions like mā kullu sawdāʾa tamratan wa-lā bayḍāʾa šaḥ matun (where kullu is not repeated before bayḍāʾa), ṭūlu l-layālī asraʿat (where the feminine singular verb is used instead of the masculine singular verb asraʿa), adḫ altu fī raʾsī l-qalansuwata (where the literal meaning suggests that the cap was inserted into one’s head), and ṣīda ʿalayhi yawmānī (where yawmānī is in the nominative although the meaning is adverbial since one means “in two days”)257 are justified on the basis of the absence of any labs, a necessary condition for all constructions that exemplify what Sībawayhi refers to as saʿat al-kalām (latitude of speech). Conversely, many constructions are deemed impermissible by Sībawayhi because they can lead to labs. Examples are Zaydun (if you mean li-yuḍrab Zaydun or li-yaḍrib Zaydun), Zaydan (if you mean li-yaḍrib ʿAmrun Zaydan), biʿtu dārī d̠irāʿan (if you mean that you sold your house for one dirham a cubit, because the listener will think that the house measures one cubit only), and taṣaddaqtu bi-mālī dirhaman (if you mean that you paid one dirham after another in charity, because the listener

255

Ibid., I, 47–48. Cf. the construction hād̠ā ʿAbdullāhi munṭaliqan (II, 78) in which the speaker intends to inform the listener of the act of inṭilāq, and not to inform him about ʿAbdullāhi since the speaker does not assume that the listener does not know ʿAbdullāhi. 257 Ibid., I, 65, 53, 181, 176 respectively. 256

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

205

will think that you gave away only one dirham).258 Furthermore, there are instances in which the competence of the speaker manifests itself in his ability to figure out any uncertainty in the mind of the listener and accordingly form his utterance in a way which would remove that uncertainty (li-tuḫriğ d̠ālika min qalbihi).259 For example, if your listener is not sure whether a certain man is standing or sitting, you would say marartu bi-rağulin lā qāʾimin wa-lā qāʿidin (“I passed by a man who is neither standing up nor sitting down”) if you want to deny both possibilities. Thus, the listener’s expectation to receive relevant information which causes no ambiguity or confusion regulates the speaker’s choice of his construction, since successful communication is a type of social obligation whose fulfillment is the speaker’s ultimate goal. The competence of the speaker is matched by the listener’s competence in the analysis of the utterances communicated to him and, if necessary, in responding to them correctly. One level involves the listener’s identification of the specific meaning intended by a statement that may have a variety of meanings distinguishable mainly in context. In an interesting passage, Sībawayhi considers three different responses that the statement atānī rağulun (“a man came to me”) may elicit from the listener on the basis of his comprehension of its meaning and his denial of its truth. If he interprets the message to be “one man, and not two, came”, he would say mā atāka rağulun, that is, more than a single man came to you. On the other hand, if he interprets it as “a man, not a woman, came”, he also would say mā atāka rağulun, but would mean “not a man, but a woman, came to you”. A third possibility is that the listener interprets the message to be a reference to the strength (i.e. manhood) of the one who came and thus denies its truth, also by saying mā atāka rağulun, that is, only weak individuals came to you.260 By using the same utterance (mā atāka rağulun) in three different meanings in response to the three different meanings of the uniform statement uttered by the speaker (atānī rağulun), the listener demonstrates his competence in decoding the communicated message and, in turn, assumes the role of a speaker who competently responds on the basis of the specific meaning of the original utterance.

258 259 260

Ibid., I, 254 for the first two examples; I, 393 for the last two examples. Ibid., I, 429. Ibid., I, 55. See also Carter’s (2007: 36) comments on the above construction.

206

chapter three

Another aspect of the listener’s competence which also matches that of the speaker is his ability to differentiate between a compound particle when used as a single entity and the same particle when it is broken into its two constituents. We have discussed earlier the case of mād̠ā/mand̠ā versus mā d̠ā/man d̠ā from the perspective of the speaker whose competence is demonstrated at two levels, namely, his distinction between the two possibilities of usage and his confirmation of this distinction by realizing its syntactical implications, that is, by using the accusative in the noun after the single-word mād̠ā and mand̠ā, but the nominative in the one after mā d̠ā and man d̠ā. For his part, the listener is not only expected to correctly identify which usage of the particle occurs in the utterance addressed to him, but he is also to choose the syntactically correct response. In the case of mā d̠ā raʾayta, the correct response is matāʿun ḥ asanun in the nominative because mā itself is in the nominative due to ibtidāʾ, and hence matāʿun follows suit. The correct response to mād̠ā raʾayta, on the other hand, is matāʿan ḥ asanan because the single-word mād̠ā is the direct object of the transitive verb and is equivalent to the interrogative particle mā in mā raʾayta.261 In the Qurʾānic verse mād̠ā anzala rabbukum qālū ḫ ayran (“ ‘What is it that your Lord has revealed’? They said: ‘All that is good’ ”; Q 16: 30), moreover, the accusative ḫ ayran is due to the use of mād̠ā as a single entity which functions as an interrogative particle. Another example of the listener’s competence has to do with his ability to reanalyze compound particles whose second element is -mā, such as kaʾannamā and ḥ ayt̠umā which Sībawayhi mentions in his discussion of mād̠ā and mand̠ā,262 as well as rubbamā, qallamā, innamā, annamā, kaʾannamā, laytamā, laʿallamā, baʿdamā, etc.263 These particles are usually examined from the perspective of the syntactical effect of -mā as far as the retention or annulment of government is concerned (cf. annulment of government of inna when -mā is suffixed to it), but more interestingly from the perspective of the part of speech which the particle precedes. For example, rubba and qalla can precede nouns only (cf. rubba rağulin, but not *rubba yaqūlu), but when -mā is suffixed to 261 Ibid., II, 417–419. Note that Sībawayhi cites the accusative after mā d̠ā and the nominative after mād̠ā, but although this usage is grammatically explicable, he asserts that the use of the nominative after the former and the accusative after the latter is the better choice (wağh; aqrab ilā an taʾḫud̠ bihi). 262 Ibid., II, 418. 263 Cf. above, chapter II, n. 254. for the occurrence of these particles in the Kitāb. Cf. also the role of reanalysis in the use of ṭālamā in Anghelescu (2004: 115–116).

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

207

them, the resulting particle can precede verbs only ( fa-alḥ aqūhumā mā wa-aḫ laṣūhumā li-l-fiʿl).264 In constructions containing these particles, the listener’s competence is demonstrable in his ability to determine whether each of them should be construed as a single compound particle or as two separate elements. In fact, proper comprehension hinges on the listener’s distinction between the two types, as in qallamā yaf ʿalu and qalla mā yaf ʿalu, innamā yaf ʿalu and inna mā yaf ʿalu, kaʾannamā yafʿalu and kaʾanna mā yafʿalu, etc. In all such cases, the competence of the speaker cannot by itself ensure proper communication if it is not matched by equal competence on the part of the listener. 6. The Use of Mit̠āl and Šāhid The Kitāb’s šawāhid are roughly made up of 1050 lines of poetry, 447 Qurʾānic verses, 350 speech patterns or idiomatic expressions, 41 proverbs and 7 or 8 prophetic ḥ adīt̠s.265 In addition to this, there is in the Kitāb, and indeed in most other grammatical works, a body of material which cannot be considered as part of the šawāhid corpus since, unlike the afore-mentioned types, it is not attributed to a particular speaker or identified with a specific genre. It is rather artificially constructed by the grammarians in order to illustrate usage. Examples of this nature are difficult to quantify since one construction can occur several times in one or more chapters of the Kitāb and since several constructions may be cited consecutively, with only minor variations, to illustrate one and the same phenomenon. Yet, irrespective of sheer numbers, such examples—which are normally referred to as amt̠ila (pl. of mit̠āl)—are interesting from the perspective of their relationship to Sībawayhi’s strategy of syntactic analysis since he uses them side by side with the attested šawāhid that illustrate the same phenomena under discussion. Being primarily interested in the analysis of the speech (kalām) of the Arabs, Sībawayhi cites šawāhid as evidence of actual usage in a variety of genres, but also formulates his own amt̠ila as an equally important type which reflects his knowledge of the language based on his familiarity with faṣīḥ usage. It is absolutely clear that Sībawayhi’s amt̠ila are not to be considered as a contradiction to the speech of the Arabs given his harsh criticism of the naḥwiyyūn for having used qiyās for the purpose 264 265

Kitāb III, 115. See above, 9, 37.

208

chapter three

of analogically creating forms and constructions that were never used by the Arabs, and given Ḫ alīl’s accusation of the naḥ ārīr of creating neologisms which are not permissible in actual speech.266 Although Sībawayhi at times speculates about the form certain words would take if they were to be molded on the analogy of commonly used patterns,267 and despite the fact that he experiments with phrases and sentences by tracing the formal changes they undergo if they were to be used as proper nouns,268 he certainly poses these merely in order to test the validity of his analysis of attested usage and does not fail to alert us that they are nowhere to be found in actual speech. Simple amt̠ila such as ʿAbdullāhi aḫūka, ḍaraba ʿAbdullāhi Zaydan, and kasawtu Zaydan al-t̠awba269 and even more complex ones such as laysa Zaydun bi-ğabānin wa-lā baḫīlan, ḍarabtu Zaydan wa-ʿAmran anā ḍāribuhu, aẓunnu ʿAmran munṭaliqan wa-Bakran aẓunnuhu ḫāriğan, and yā Zaydu l-nākiya l-ʿaduwwi wa-d̠ā l-faḍli270 much more conveniently illustrate syntactical relationships than poetry or Qurʾānic verses and are thus easier to cite as representative of these relationships. Just as the phrase ʿišrūna dirhaman is intended to be “the stock illustration of the various grammatical features it embodies”271 (e.g. the tanwīn-naṣb construction), there are numerous other phrases and sentences each of which is regularly cited in various locations of the Kitāb as representative of a particular phenomenon. For instance, the sentence yā ayyuhā l-rağulu272 is intended to illustrate the fact that certain linguistic elements cannot occur in pause (lā yuskat ʿalayhi) and hence are necessarily followed by other parts of the sentence. In other words, *yā ayyuhā cannot stand on its own without a complement. Among the particles or nouns (according to Sībawayhi’s distinction between parts of speech) which he compares with *yā ayyuhā in this respect are rubba and relative man,

266

See above, 20. E.g. the formulation of *ramawiyy and *uġzuwwa of the roots rmy and ġzw on the analogy of ḥ amaṣīṣa and ufʿūla respectively; cf. Kitāb IV, 406–407 and above, 50. 268 Among the numerous examples of tasmiya (denomination) which are most unlikely to be used in actual speech are it̠nā ʿašara, yarmī, irmih, hād̠ā Zaydun, min Zaydin, fī Zaydin, etc. (III, 307, 312, 317, 328–330). See also below, 220 ff. 269 Ibid., I, 23, 34, 44. 270 Ibid., I, 66, 93, 119; II, 193. 271 Carter (1972b: 490). 272 Note that the construction yā ayyuhā l-rağulu is a sentence according to Sībawayhi because of his assumption of a verb by which he justifies the accusative status of the vocative ( fa-huwa naṣb ʿalā iḍmār al-fiʿl al-matrūk iẓhāruhu; II, 182). 267

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

209

mā and allad̠ī.273 Other frequently used illustrative formulations include ammā anta munṭaliqan inṭalaqtu maʿaka (where the alleged elision of the verb kunta is compensated for by introducing -mā after an, hence ammā),274 umrur/marartu ʿalā ayyuhum afḍalu (where ayyu retains the ḍamma although it is not in the nominative, and where huwa is assumed before afḍalu),275 in ḫayran fa-ḫayrun wa-in šarran fa-šarrun (where the protasis, kāna, is elided but may be restored in actual speech),276 d̠ahabat baʿḍu aṣābiʿihi (where the feminine verb is used with a masculine agent, baʿḍu, because the construct following that agent is feminine),277 kullu rağulin/imriʾin wa-ḍayʿatuhu (where the noun following wāw is in the nominative instead of the accusative although that wāw has the meaning of maʿa),278 etc. Also worth noting is Sībawayhi’s consistency in using his amt̠ila in two different bābs, such as vocation (nidāʾ) and generic lā both of which share several features as previously noted (cf., for example, yā ḍāriban rağulan/lā ḍāriban Zaydan laka and yā ḫ ayran minka/lā ḫ ayran minhu laka).279 The most important advantage with which the use of amt̠ila provides Sībawayhi is perhaps their flexibility relative to šawāhid that are derived from poetry, Qurʾān or proverbs. This flexibility allows Sībawayhi to propose a model sentence for a particular phenomenon and then introduce to it a series of changes. In each ensuing sentence—which, contrary to šawāhid, contains only the minimum number of elements needed for illustration—he assesses the result of the introduced change on the syntactical relationships of its constituent elements as well as on the meaning of the construction. A chapter that lends itself extremely well to study from this perspective is bāb al-fāʾ which has been cited earlier in connection with the difference in meaning resulting from the use of the subjunctive or the indicative in the verb after fāʾ.280 Sībawayhi proposes lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī/fa-tuḥ addit̠unī as the model sentence which he modifies in a variety of ways so that it can yield a large number of hypothetical sentences. We will arrange these sentences below into six groups according to their common features which largely coincide 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280

Ibid., II, 106, 188, 211–212. Ibid., I, 293; II, 149–150, 332. Ibid., II, 107, 399; cf. I, 263. Ibid., I, 258; III, 113, 149. Ibid., I, 51, 402; III, 248. Ibid., I, 299, 305, 393. See above, 166–170. See above, 189.

210

chapter three

with their order of appearance in the chapter on fāʾ.281 Based on the difference in meaning between the subjunctive and the indicative in these sentences, we shall render the fāʾ, wherever possible, as “so that” when is followed by the subjunctive and as “and” when it is followed by the indicative. The attested šawāhid of the Kitāb will be introduced after the discussion of the various amt̠ila. The first group consists of three sentences, including the model sentence: (1) lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī (2) mā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī (3) mā ataytanā fa-tuḥ addit̠anā Sībawayhi gives four possible meanings for the model sentence and, by extension, to sentences (2) and (3). In the subjunctive, the meaning is either “You do not visit me, so how can you converse with me”? or “You visit me often, but you do not converse with me”. The indicative also has two distinct meanings: “You neither visit me nor converse with me” and “You do not visit me, and you are conversing with me now”. The first change to the model sentence is the replacement of lā by mā in (2), and is followed by the replacement of the imperfect taʾtīnī by the perfect ataytanā in (3). These changes, Sībawayhi notes, have no bearing either on meaning or on the possibility of using the subjunctive and the indicative after fāʾ. The second group includes the following three sentences: (4) mā taʾtīnā fa-takallama (i.e. fa-tatakallama) illā bi-l-ğamīli (“You never visit us and speak but courteously”) (5) lā taʾtīnā fa-tuḥ addit̠anā illā zdadnā fīka raġbatan (“You never visit us without us becoming more interested in you”) (6) lā yasaʿunī šayʾun fa-yaʿğiza ʿanka (“Nothing that I am capable of is too difficult for you”) Common to these three sentences is illā which is explicit in (4) and (5) but implied in (6). The introduction of illā should be a good testing device given the impact it has on the form and meaning of constructions

281 Ibid., III, 28–41. For a more detailed discussion of these six groups of sentences, see Baalbaki (2001: 197–202).

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

211

begun, like the three sentences above, with a negative particle (cf. the annulment of the government of mā when illā is introduced, as in mā anta illā karīmun). It is also noteworthy that Sībawayhi introduces after illā in (3) a preposition and genitive that are related to the verb before illā, and in (4) a verbal sentence, in order to determine in both cases whether this has any impact on the verb after fāʾ and consequently on the meaning of the construction. In (6), Sībawayhi’s own words are lā yasaʿunī šayʾun illā lam yaʿğiz ʿanka where illā is used to explain the intended meaning. With these modifications, both the subjunctive and the indicative can be used in (4) and (5), whereas only the subjunctive is permissible in (6) because the indicative would result in a meaning which no one intends ( fa-hād̠ā lā yanwīhi aḥ ad). The next three sentences form the third group: (7) mā anta minnā fa-tuḥ addit̠anā (“You are not one of us so that you converse with us”) (8) alā māʾa fa-ašrabahu (“Is there no water so that I drink it”?) (9) laytahu ʿindanā fa-yuḥ addit̠anā (“I wish he were with us so that he converses with us”) The common feature shared by these sentences is the absence of a verb before fāʾ, unlike the previous six sentences. Sībawayhi obviously introduces this change because it annuls the possibility of conjoining one verb to another as in the previous sentences, and consequently only the subjunctive is permissible.282 It can also be noted that Sībawayhi changes the particle at the beginning of each sentence to monitor any possible effect this might have on the verb’s case-ending and hence on meaning. The third sentence in the fourth group is fourteenth in the order of appearance in the Kitāb, and although a looser connection which would bring together sentences (10) through (14) into one group can be found, it makes better sense to place (14) in the fourth group with other sentences which begin with an interrogative particle followed by a verb:

282 Sībawayhi explicitly prohibits the indicative in (8) and (9), but allows it, strangely enough, in (7) in spite of the structural similarity of all three sentences.

212

chapter three

(10) a-lā taqaʿu l-māʾa fa-tasbaḥ a (“Would you not jump into the water so that you swim”?) (11) a-lam taʾtinā fa-tuḥ addit̠anā (“Did you not visit us so that you converse with us”?) (14) a-lasta qad ataytanā fa-tuḥ addit̠anā (“Have you not visited us so that you converse with us”?) Based on meaning, Sībawayhi determines that the subjunctive is permissible in all three sentences because the realization of the second verb is dependent on the realization of the first. Similarly, the indicative in (10) and (14)—which is matched by the jussive in (11) due to the presence of lam—is permissible if both verbs are meant to be negated; e.g. a-lā taqāʿu a-lā tasbaḥ u (“Would you not jump? Would you not swim”?). Sentences (12) and (13) may be classified in a separate group because they represent, respectively, nahy (prohibition) and amr (command) which are very frequently discussed together in grammatical works: (12) lā tamdudhā fa-tašuqqahā (“Do not extend it lest you tear it”) (13) iʾtinī fa-uḥ addit̠aka (“Visit me so that I converse with you”) As far as meaning is concerned, both the subjunctive and the indicative may be used in (12) based on the distinction established in the meaning of the model sentence, whereas only the meaning associated with subjunctive is permissible in (13). Sībawayhi argues here that the jussive—which is equivalent to the indicative in other sentences and is due to the presence of the imperative verb iʾtinī—is impermissible because the imperfect can never have the grammatical position of the imperative, or else it would be possible to say tuḥ addit̠nī when the imperative is intended (i.e. the fāʾ does not conjoin the two verbs in the sentence and hence the second verb has to be in the subjunctive). The last group comprises the following three sentences which differ from all previous ones because each is in the affirmative, not in the negative283 and none is a wish or command:

283 Even sentence (15) which contains the negative particle lam is in the affirmative because it begins with kaʾannaka; see Baalbaki (2001: 201 n. 32). Note, on the other hand, that the meaning of (16) and (17) may be interpreted as negative in spite of the absence of a negative particle (e.g. if ityān and šatm do not actually take place).

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

213

(15) kaʾannaka lam taʾtinā fa-tuḥ addit̠anā (“As if you have not visited us so that you converse with us”) (16) wadda law taʾtīhi fa-tuḥ addit̠ahu (“He wished that you would visit him so that you converse with him”) (17) ḥ asibtuhu šatamanī fa-at̠iba ʿalayhi (“I misconstrued that he cursed me; [had he done], I would have jumped at him”) In addition to these seventeen amt̠ila, Sībawayhi cites two other ones in which only the indicative is admissible because of the absence of negation: (18) innahu ʿindanā fa-yuḥ addit̠unā (“He is with us, and he converses with us”) (19) sawfa ātīhi fa-uḥ addit̠uhu (“I shall visit him, and I shall converse with him”) Through a series of changes introduced to the model sentence in an experimental fashion, Sībawayhi confirms the soundness of the four meanings (two for the subjunctive and two for the indicative) with which he starts his chapter. To preserve the model sentence, he retains the verbs taʾtī and tuḥ addit̠u as much as possible (cf. sentences 2–5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18–19) obviously in order to minimize the variables to which the form of the construction, and consequently its meaning, may be linked. This method is certainly more practical and informative than citing a different attested šāhid in each case and thus shattering the unity which binds the numerous illustrative examples of the whole chapter. As for the šawāhid (from poetry and Qurʾān), Sībawayhi uses them as testimony to the correctness of the sentences which he artificially formulates for illustrating the various changes that can be introduced to the model sentence. Indeed, there is a remarkable affinity between Sībawayhi’s amt̠ila and šawāhid, suggesting that the latter are not haphazardly arranged and that he utilizes them to formulate some of his illustrative examples whose connection with the model sentence he is quite keen to maintain. The following comparison demonstrates the afore-mentioned affinity between his amt̠ila and the poetry šawāhid he cites: 1. Sentence (1), or the model sentence: lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠unī, in the indicative; cf. the line (attributed to a Ḥ āritī̠ ) ġayra annā lam taʾtinā

214

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

chapter three

bi-yaqīnin * fa-nurağğī wa-nukt̠iru l-taʾmīlā (“But you have not presented us with certitude; hence we anticipate and hold out hope”). Sentence (4): mā taʾtīnā fa-takallama illā bi-l-ğamīli; cf. Farazdaq’s line wa-mā qāma minnā qāʾimun fī nadiyyinā * fa-yanṭiqa illā bi-llatī hiya aʿrafu (“Never has a spokesman of ours risen in our assembly so that he speaks, except that he uttered the most evidently known [truth]”). Sentence (5): lā taʾtīnā fa-tuḥ addit̠anā illā zdadnā fīka raġbatan; cf. al-Laʿīn al-Minqarī’s line wa-mā ḥ alla Saʿdiyyun ġarīban bi-baldatin * fa-yunsaba illā l-Zibriqānu lahu abu (“Never has a Saʿdī descended on a town as a stranger required to be identified, except that he claims al-Zibriqān as an ancestor”). Sentence (7): mā anta minnā fa-tuḥ addit̠anā; cf. Farazdaq’s line mā anta min Qaysin fa-tanbaḥ a dūnahā * wa-lā Tamīmin fī-l-lahā wa-l-ġalāṣimi (“You do not belong to Qays so that you bark in their defense, nor do you rank in Tamīm among its vital parts”). Sentence (8): alā māʾa fa-ašrabahu; cf. Umayya b. Abī l-Ṣalt’s line alā rasūla lanā minnā fa-yuḫbiranā * mā buʿdu ġāyatinā min raʾsi muğrānā (“Is there no messenger of our number so that he informs us how far from our starting point our racing target is”?). Sentence (11): a-lam taʾtinā fa-tuḥ addit̠anā; cf. the unattributed line a-lam tasʾal fa-tuḫbiraka l-rusūmu * ʿalā Firtāğa wa-l-ṭalalu l-qadīmu (“Have you not at Firtāğ enquired, so that the tracings and the old campsite inform you”?). Sentence (13): iʾtinī fa-uḥ addit̠aka; cf. Abū l-Nağm al-ʿIğlī’s line yā nāqu sīrī ʿanaqan fasīḥ ā * ilā Sulaymāna fa-nastarīḥ ā (“Oh [she] camel: Move on toward Sulaymān in long strides so that we find rest”). Sentence (15): kaʾannaka lam taʾtinā fa-tuḥ addit̠anā; cf. the line (attributed to a Dārimī) kaʾannaka lam tad̠baḥ li-ahlika naʿğatan * fa-yuṣbiḥ a mulqan fī l-fināʾi ihābuhā (“As if you have not slaughtered a ewe for your people so that its skin ends up cast in the courtyard”).

The last part of the chapter (designated for constructions in which only the indicative is used, except in poetic license) contains three poetry šawāhid by Nābiġa, Ğamīl b. Maʿmar and Aʿšā, and three Qurʾānic verses. It should finally be mentioned that, for the sake of brevity, we will not deal with the two chapters following the one on fāʾ (i.e. wāw and aw

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

215

which are followed either by the subjunctive or the indicative),284 but it is to be noted that, as in the chapter on fāʾ, each of the two groups of amt̠ila and šawāhid cited with wāw and aw serves a specific purpose, and each of them exhibits a high degree of affinity and interrelatedness. 7. The Tools of Checking System Validity It is clear that Sībawayhi aspires in his Kitāb to present a coherent grammatical system of analysis that describes and justifies the speech of the Arabs. The coherence of the system is apparent in the applicability of the fundamental analytical tools (discussed in the preceding chapter) to the corpus which constitutes Arab usage and hence the contents of the Kitāb. For example, in discussing the ʿamal of a certain particle, issues may arise that are related to samāʿ (such as the authenticity of the attested material); qiyās (such as the relationship of the particle to other operants from the same part or different parts of speech); ʿilla (such as the reasons which dictate the retention or annulment of ʿamal); taqdīr (such as the ascription of ʿamal to the particle if it is elided); aṣl (such as the question of whether it is the aṣl in a certain construction for the particle to govern or not); group membership (such as the position which the particle occupies relative to its sisters in a well-defined hierarchical order), etc. Accordingly, each analytical tool is validated by other tools in the system, and in turn participates in validating other tools. This approach is part of Sībawayhi’s relentless effort to demonstrate the correctness of his axioms and methods by utilizing the various analytical tools at his disposal within the overall system of analysis. This notwithstanding, there are in the Kitāb a few tools which are specifically designed to check the validity of the system, and these testing devices are the focus of this section. Not surprisingly, there is no specific testing device for the syntactical axioms of the Kitāb given that the very tools of syntactical analysis, as illustrated above, are reciprocally used for that end. It should be noted that the drills known as al-alif wa-l-lām or al-iḫbār bi-llad̠ī/bi-l-alif wal-lām are the invention of later authors and do not feature in the Kitāb. These drills, which may be viewed as one way of testing the limits of

284

Kitāb III, 41–52.

216

chapter three

the complexity of constructions, involve the transformation of verbal or nominal sentences into propositions which typically start with the relative pronoun allad̠ī (or one of its counterparts) or with the definite article al- (which is etymologically related to allād̠ī, allatī, etc. and is even recognized as a relative pronoun).285 Mubarrad’s (d. 285/898) Muqtaḍab is the first extant source which includes such drills,286 but, as Mubarrad himself notes, the grammarians (naḥwiyyūn) have artificially devised parts of these drills and used them extensively.287 It is tempting to suggest that Mubarrad’s reference to the naḥwiyyūn is reminiscent of Sībawayhi’s reference to the group he calls naḥwiyyūn as well—particularly because Mubarrad quotes them on a matter which they allegedly devised without recourse to usage—but it is highly unlikely that the term used by Mubarrad a whole century after Sībawayhi still refers to the same group to the exclusion of grammarians closer to Mubarrad’s time. In all circumstances, Mubarrad begins his lengthy discussion of these drills by defining ḫ abar (statement; i.e. versus wish or command, later referred to as inšāʾ) as the construction whose speaker may be telling the truth or lying (wa-l-ḫ abar mā ğāza ʿalā qāʾilihi l-taṣdīq wa-l-takd̠īb).288 This definition, which is largely embodied in works on rhetoric, is the clue for understanding the aim of the iḫbār drills (interestingly called by Mubarrad ibtidāʾ from the perspective of starting the construction by allād̠ī or al-). By changing the construction into a proposition which starts by a relative pronoun or the definite article, the truthfulness of several components of the construction may be checked.289 For example, in a simple construction like aʿṭaytu Zaydan dirhaman, one may be asked to form a set of propositions based on the various aspects of truth that are involved. If asked to have Zayd as the predicate of the proposition (note the term aḫbir in aḫbir ʿan Zayd, lit. make Zayd the predicate), one should say al-muʿṭīhi anā dirhaman Zaydun (“The one whom I

285 Later works list al-mawṣūliyya among relative pronouns and cite its prefixation to active and passive participles as well as to imperfect verbs and adverbs; cf. Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 76–77, 81–82; Ušmūnī, Šarḥ I, 71–72, 76. For iḫbār and possible corresponding terms in English, see Goldenberg (1988: 67–69). 286 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 89–132; IV, 352–353. 287 Ibid., III, 130–132. Cf. Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Uṣūl I, 65 where he says that these drills were analogically created by the grammarians (qāsahu l-naḥwiyyūn) as exercises for students and that they have no parallel (naẓīr) in the speech of the Arabs. 288 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 89. 289 Carter (1981: 353) considers the transformation of all utterances into propositions so as to test their truthfulness “an innovation in a grammatical system which had not previously recognized truth as a sentence-criterion”.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

217

am giving a dirham is Zayd”). But if the dirham or the speaker are to be the predicate, the correct response would be al-muʿṭī anā Zaydan iyyāhu dirhamun (“The thing that I am giving Zayd is a dirham”) and al-muʿṭī Zaydan dirhaman anā (“The one giving Zayd a dirham is I”).290 Such artificial constructions which hardly feature in speech not only serve the pedagogical process but also test the limits of the construction and place each of its constituents—e.g. the subject, predicate, direct object, apposition, etc.—in its correct, albeit theoretical, grammatical position (mawḍiʿ ). The closest that Sībawayhi gets to this is the chapter on the relative or interrogative particle ayy,291 where he begins by examining relatively simple constructions which begin with ayy, such as ayyu llad̠īna raʾayta fī l-dāri afḍalu (“Who among those you saw in the house is best”?), but proceeds to considerably more complex ones such as ayyu man in yaʾtinā nuʿṭihi nukrimhu (a rough translation of which is as follows: “Whom—if he comes to us we give him—shall we honor”?), and ultimately to the intractable (and certainly untranslatable) construction ayya man in yaʾtihi man in yaʾtinā nuʿṭihi yuʿṭihi taʾti yukrimka. Such complex constructions, particularly the last one which is probably unique in the Kitāb, are not pedagogical devices but an illustration of the correct grammatical positions which the annexed components of the construction should occupy. Indeed, Sībawayhi shows how these constructions are merely extensions of much simpler ones. For example, he reduces the last construction to ayya man in yaʾtihi Zaydun yuʿṭihi taʾti yukrimka, and then to ayyahum taʾti yukrimka since these share with it the same basic structure before its expansion. It is likely, however, that Sībawayhi’s complex constructions are precursors to those drills which Mubarrad and some other later grammarians extensively utilize. Also at the level of syntax, there are several constructions in the Kitāb which may seem to be artificially devised by Sībawayhi in order to represent certain unfamiliar syntactical relationships, yet which in fact are amt̠ila that mirror attested šawāhid (cf. the previous section on mit̠āl and šāhid). Dimašqiyya discusses a number of amt̠ila which Sībawayhi cites in the chapter that deals with verbal nouns whose meaning and government are similar to those of the imperfect (bāb min al-maṣādir

290 291

Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 93. Kitāb II, 404–406.

218

chapter three

ğarā mağrā l-fiʿl al-muḍāriʿ fī ʿamalihi wa-maʿnāhu)292 and dismisses them as mere inventions that are unparalleled in actual speech and are prompted by what he calls qiyās riyāḍī (mathematical analogy).293 The truth of the matter, however, is that these amt̠ila are a faithful representation—by the usually used words Zayd, aḫūhu, ḍarabtu, ʿağibtu min, etc.—of syntactical relationships that do occur in the šawāhid cited in the same chapter. Accordingly, they should not be interpreted in a manner that distorts their similarity to the accompanying šawāhid (even if some of these šawāhid are due to poetic license), nor should the šawāhid be dismissed (as in Dimašqiyya’s argument) merely on the grounds that their authors are unknown. Among the constructions which Dimašqiyya dismisses are the following ones, each of which is followed here by the actual šāhid which corresponds to it: 1. ʿağibtu min ḍarbin Zaydan, where the verbal noun in nunated and governs Zaydan as its direct object; cf. aw iṭʿāmun fī yawmin d̠ī masġabatin yatīman d̠ā maqrabatin (“or the giving of food on a day of deprivation to the orphan with claims of relationship”; Q 90: 14–15). 2. ʿağibtu lahu min ḍarbi Zaydin wa-ʿAmran, where ʿAmran is in the accusative although it is conjoined to Zaydin in the genitive; cf. Ruʾba’s line: qad kuntu dāyantu bihā Ḥ assānā * maḫāfata l-iflāsi wa-l-layyānā (“I had loaned [my camels] to Ḥ assān for fear of bankruptcy and procrastination”). 3. ʿağibtu min al-ḍarbi Zaydan, where Zaydan is in the accusative in spite of the fact that the preceding noun has a definite article; cf. al-Marrār al-Asadī’s line laqad ʿalimat ūlā l-muġīrati annanī * laḥiqtu fa-lam ankul ʿan al-ḍarbi Mismaʿā (“The first raiders knew that I caught up with Mismaʿ and struck him with my sword”). 4. ʿağibtu min ḍarbi l-yawmi Zaydan, where the adverb intervenes between the verbal noun and its direct object and becomes genitive due to annexion (iḍāfa); cf. the unattributed hemistich yā sāriqa l-laylati ahla l-dār/dāri (“O you who have tonight robbed the inhabitants of the house”!),294 where the active participle sāriq is similarly separated from its direct object by an intervening adverb. 292

Ibid., I, 189–194. Dimašqiyya (1978: 189–201). 294 Both forms, the first of which occurs in Hārūn’s edition and the second in the Būlāq edition, are metrically acceptable. 293

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

219

Morphology presents a different picture from that of syntax when it comes to the checking of the validity of its axioms by Sībawayhi. This may be due in part to both the large number of morphological patterns which he had to deal with295 and the speculative nature of some of the morphological premises of the theory. In particular, the postulation of an aṣl from which certain patterns have evolved, and the various complex processes that are supposed to have prompted the change of that aṣl—such as iʿlāl (vowel mutation), ziyāda (augmentation), ḥ ad̠f (omission), and naql (vowel transference)—have largely branded as speculative the study of morphology as a whole. It is only natural that the permutations which theoretically give words and patterns their attested forms be regularly checked since the correctness of the whole morphological theory hinges upon their validity and reliability. For example, countless words and patterns are explained by reference to iʿlāl which involves vocalic change of a highly complex nature. 296 The validity of iʿlāl as a process is therefore a prerequisite for the validity of the system which heavily relies on it for interpreting forms and patterns. Unlike versatile notions such as taqdīr and ʿamal, which are used in the realm of syntax to justify usage and explain the relationship among the various parts of the utterance, iʿlāl and other morphological processes are so inflexible that—short of being rejected altogether—they hardly admit alternative explanations for the forms and patterns under discussion. This is probably the reason why one finds differences on a large scale among grammarians in, say, the assumption of elided operants or the permissibility of a certain case-ending in a particular syntactic context, but not in the realm of morphology which thus remained relatively little changed throughout the tradition. It may thus be suggested that this difference between syntax and morphology made the invention of testing devices more crucial for the latter than for the former. Three such devices are discernable in the Kitāb, namely, the theoretical formulation of words, the theoretical formulation of proper nouns, and ilḥ āq: 1. Word formulation: Sībawayhi frequently proposes words which he artificially creates on the analogy of attested words or patterns. Since the roots of the proposed words almost exclusively have a weak second or third radical (e.g. qwl, rmy and ġzw), it is evident that

295 296

Cf. above, 150, 172. Cf. the indices of ʿUḍayma (1975: 603–614) and Hārūn (Kitāb V, 257–258).

220

chapter three

the purpose of such formulations is to check the validity of iʿlāl and demonstrate its applicability at the theoretical level as part of the justification of its applicability in actual usage. Proposed words are formulated either on the analogy of a given pattern or a given word. For example, on the analogy of the patterns if ʿalaltu and if ʿālaltu, the root ġzw yields *iġzawaytu and *iġzāwaytu, and on the analogy of the pattern ufʿūla, it yields *uġzuwwa.297 These artificial formulations, as Sībawayhi demonstrates, correspond to attested forms which, in the case of our three examples, are irʿawaytu, iḥwāwaytu and udʿuwwa respectively. By virtue of this correspondence, the attested forms testify to the correctness of the artificial ones and to the validity of the rules of iʿlāl according to which they are formulated. Reciprocally, the artificially created forms confirm the soundness of the iʿlāl rules which are adopted in the analysis of the attested forms since the proper application of these rules yields plausible, albeit artificial words. Examples of formulations that are created on the analogy of particular words include *ramawiyy, *ramawt, *rawamy and *rimayna which are formed on the analogy of ṣamakīk, malakūt, kawaʾlal and ḫilafna respectively.298 That such formulations are purely speculative is clearly indicated in one of the Kitāb’s chapters which deals with forms that are derived from geminate roots but only whose counterparts from other types of roots feature in actual speech.299 From the geminate root rdd, Sībawayhi thus formulates words such as *radawdad, *irdawadda, *raddad, *ruddud and *rudaddad, which correspond to ʿat̠awt̠al, isbaṭarra, qardad, duḫ lul and ğulaʿlaʿ respectively. 2. Proper nouns: Just as words are formulated on the analogy of other words or on the analogy of a given pattern, linguistic elements may be used for formulating proper nouns which are not destined to be used but which involve the application of various morphological rules that the system adopts. The speculative exercise known in later sources as tasmiya (denomination) has firm roots in the Kitāb where a couple of hundred elements are transformed into proper nouns. Such transformation raises various morphological issues as the following representative sample demonstrates:

297

Kitāb IV, 402–403, 407. Ibid., IV, 406, 411, 413. 299 Cf. IV, 427: hād̠ā mā qīsa min al-muḍāʿaf allād̠ī ʿaynuhu wa-lāmuhu min mawḍiʿ wāḥ id wa-lam yağiʾ fī l-kalām illā naẓīruhu min ġayrihi. 298

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

221

a. If you call a man muslimūna or rağulāni, no dual or sound masculine plural may be derived from either of them, and you would say kulluhum muslimūna and kulluhum rağulāni. If, however, you call a man by a sound feminine plural noun, such as tamarāt, a dual may be used (hence tamarātāni) because, unlike the case of muslimūna and rağulāni, the dual that is formed on the basis of the sound feminine plural as its singular does not have two markers for either the nominative, the accusative or the genitive (cf. *muslimūnāni and *rağulānāni).300 b. If you call a man by a feminine noun of four or more radicals, such as ʿaqrab and ʿankabūt, that proper noun should be treated as a diptote because it is not the aṣl (i.e. the usage which is most frequently attested and which agrees with qiyās) to call a man by a noun that is not masculine. If, however, you call a man by an adjective exclusively used for the feminine, such as ḥ āʾiḍ (menstruous) and mutʾim (twinning), that proper noun should be treated as triptote (maṣrūf ) because it is morphologically a masculine word that was used as a feminine adjective.301 c. If you call a woman by a masculine triliteral noun which is described as ḫ afīf (light), such as Zayd, it should be treated as a diptote because the aṣl is not to use the masculine as a proper noun for the feminine.302 d. If you call a man it̠nā ʿašara, the second element should be dropped if the proper noun becomes construct because the number itself is not intended, and no ambiguity (iltibās) can arise.303 e. If you call a man by the imperative verb irmi, then you should say raʾaytu irmiya because as a proper noun the word is no longer in the jussive and hence can be in the nominative, the accusative or the genitive.304 f. If you call a man by the nominal sentence al-rağulu munṭaliqun, you should retain the definite article in the vocative (i.e. yā l-rağulu munṭaliqun) because this proper noun is made up of two independent nouns (li-annaka sammaytahu bi-šayʾayni kull wāḥid minhumā ism tāmm) and is thus like taʾabbaṭa šarran which

300 301 302 303 304

Ibid., III, 392–393. Ibid., III, 235–236. Ibid., III, 242. Ibid., III, 307. Ibid., III, 317–318.

222

chapter three

should be kept intact because its first element governs the second one.305 g. If you call a man by the particles inna or layta, their final vowels may be changed because they resemble the final vowels of verbs like kāna. As proof, Sībawayhi cites the form laytun, with nunation, which occurs in poetry. On the other hand, if you call a man by anna, Ḫ alīl stipulates that the original final vowel ought always to be retained (cf. the expression lā aksiruhu) because anna, unlike inna, resembles nouns due to the fact that it can syntactically replace nouns (cf. ʿalimtu annaka munṭaliqun and ʿalimtu nṭilāqaka).306 h. If you call a man by the particle law, you should double the wāw in constructions like inna lawwan—which does occur in a poetry šāhid—because in the speech of the Arabs there is no noun (i.e. in contrast to particles) which ends with a wāw preceded by a fatḥ a.307 This example shows that for Sībawayhi the artificially created forms should always be commensurate with the morphological structure of Arabic words. i. If you call a man by the letter b, you should say hād̠ā ibun since the noun should be made up of at least two sounds (the b and the conjunctive hamza) other than tanwīn, or else the nominal pattern would be perturbed (yaḫtall).308 The above examples show that Sībawayhi discusses the formulation of proper nouns at the various levels of complexity of linguistic elements, from phonemes or single letters of the alphabet up to sentential constructions. The morphological issues which this discussion raises practically cover all aspects of noun morphology, such as the rules of the dual, sound masculine plural, sound feminine plural, gender, diminutive, nisba (gentilic) forms, etc. Furthermore, morphosyntactical issues are raised, as in the interpretation of the fatḥ a of inna, the construct form of it̠nā ʿašara, the diptotic or triptotic nature of the formulated proper nouns, etc. Sībawayhi obviously formulates his material on the analogy of the speech of the Arabs, witness his justification of the doubling of the wāw in inna lawwan on the basis of nominal forms that are actually used. By 305 306 307 308

Ibid., III, 333. Ibid., III, 261. Ibid., III, 261; IV, 218; cf. Ḫ alīl, ʿAyn I, 50. Kitāb III, 323–324.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

223

describing the manner in which the formulated proper nouns should be treated, Sībawayhi in fact tests the rules of noun morphology and, as in the case of word formulation in 1 above, the presence of attested material (e.g. taʾabbaṭa šarran in “f ” above) supports the correctness of the forms he proposes. His purpose therefore is different from that of the naḥwiyyūn whom he regularly criticizes for using analogy to create artificial data without recourse to the spoken language, and also from that of the naḥ ārīr whose neologisms are harshly criticized by Ḫ alīl. The Kitāb’s material on tasmiya does not negate its author’s intention to describe and justify the speech of the Arabs since his formulations serve as means to test the validity of the axioms which he adopts in his analysis of speech. Although such formulations turned at a later stage into pedagogical drills, their original purpose, in line with the spirit of the Kitāb, is not pedagogical. These formulations are closely related to the system of morphological analysis which Sībawayhi adopts. It is thus important to note that the choice of proper nouns for checking the validity of the system is not arbitrary since a considerable number of attested proper nouns are themselves the result of the speakers’ reclassification of words from one part of speech, or subclass, to another. The later grammarians refer to this type of proper nouns as al-ʿalam al-manqūl (reclassified or transferred proper noun), and there are a dozen or so possible sources from which its examples are derived. These include, for example, verbal nouns (cf. faḍl), concrete nouns (cf. asad), active participles (cf. ḥ ārit̠), imperfect verbs, (cf. yaškur), etc.309 The fact that linguistic elements undergo this transformation when they are used as proper nouns in actual speech is probably one reason why Sībawayhi chooses proper nouns to illustrate the changes that are expected to occur in particles, verbs, nouns, sentences, phonemes, etc. if they are theoretically transformed into proper nouns. It is also possible, as Carter suggests, that Sībawayhi’s discussion of the difference between the name of a phoneme and its sound, the methods of naming particles and parts of elements, and the consequences of citing verb forms as nouns310 means that he and Ḫ alil were “well aware of the existence of and need for metalanguage”.311 This, however, is a minor concern of Sībawayhi’s

309 Cf. Ibn Yāʿīš, Šarḥ I, 29–32; Ibn Hišām, Awḍaḥ I, 123–124; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 67; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 71–72; see also Baalbaki (1995b: 2). 310 Kitāb III, 320, 259, 208 respectively. 311 Carter (1981: 351).

224

chapter three

compared with his purpose of testing morphological rules and demonstrating their universal applicability even at the theoretical level. 3. Ilḥ āq: We have already encountered this morphological notion which Sībawayhi utilizes to reduce the number of basic patterns in the corpus and bring rarely attested forms in line with the norm.312 Ilḥ āq is also used by Sībawayhi as a testing device for a number of morphological axioms, including the distinction between those radicals which belong to aṣl (here root) and those that are augmented (ziyāda). For example, he compares ʿafarnā (strong lion) with two of its synonyms, ʿifr and ʿifrīt, and concludes that its n and ā are ziyāda and that the word itself is appended to quinqueliterals, as is its synonym ʿufāriya. The four diminutive forms ʿufayrin, ʿufayrina, ʿufayr and ʿufayriya are then cited because the first two demonstrate that the ā of ʿafarnā is zāʾida, and the other two demonstrate that its n is zāʾida. Thus, appended words can validate the morphological rules which govern the diminutive since its formation is largely based on the distinction between aṣl and ziyāda.313 Furthermore, the position of ziyāda in certain words can be checked by examining appended words since these mirror the morphological structure of words to which they are appended. For example, iḥranğama and iḫranṭama are interpreted as quadriliterals since their nūn is zāʾida. This interpretation is supported by appended words such as iqʿansasa and islanqā, the position (mawḍiʿ ) of whose augmented nūn is likewise between the second and third original radicals of the roots qʿs and slq.314 In a broader context, the validation of morphological premises by the three above-mentioned testing devices is harmonious with the early grammatical interest in determining reliable criteria by which Arabic words may be distinguished from Arabized or invented words. Ḫ alīl’s attempt to describe such criteria in the introduction of Kitāb al-ʿAyn is the earliest that we know of. His observations on the phonological characteristics and phonotactics of Arabic roots and words (e.g. that no Arabic quadriliteral or quinqueliteral root can be devoid of liquids

312

Cf. above, 147 ff. Kitāb III, 437–438; cf. Baalbaki (2001–2002: 19). 314 Ibid., IV 286–287; cf. Māzinī, Taṣrīf I, 86 and Ibn Ğinnī, Munṣif I, 86–89 where the same examples as in the Kitab are cited. 313

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

225

or labials and that no Arabic word begins with n-r)315 are in line with his aim of exhausting all potential Arabic roots, irrespective of whether they are used or not. Words such as duʿšūqa and ğulāhiq thus betray their foreign origins, and words that are created by the naḥ ārīr—such as kašaʿt̠ağ and ḫ aḍaʿt̠ağ—are easily recognizable as impermissible in speech (lā tağūz fī kalām al-ʿArab). Both types are incommensurate with the structure of Arabic words. For his part, Sībawayhi also seems to have been interested in the distinction between Arabic and non-Arabic words. At the level of phonology, he enumerates eight letters which he describes as unpleasant (ḥ urūf ġayr mustaḥ sana),316 some of which, as we know from later authors, are associated with foreign speech.317 He also devotes two short chapters to Arabized Persian words and the changes their Arabization produces.318 Of more significance, however, are those instances in which he uses the expression laysa fī kalām al-ʿArab to deny the existence of certain patterns. This expression—which was largely adopted by later authors and which even inspired Ibn Ḫ ālawayhi (d. 370/980) to name his book, Laysa, after it—reflects the interest of Sībawayhi and his teacher, Ḫ alīl, in establishing criteria for the morphological structure of Arabic words. What is not Arabic had to be eliminated and this obviously required that it be clearly identified. This explains Sībawayhi’s frequent reference to patterns that do not exist in kalām, such as fiʿul; if ʿul; uf ʿīl, af ʿawl, uf ʿāl, af ʿīl; fāʿul; fāʿayl, fāʿīl, fāʿawl, fāʿalāʾ; fiʿālā; yaf ʿāl, yuf ʿūl, yuf ʿul; fiʿʿayl; fuʿlun, faʿlan; fiʿawwal, fuʿawwal, etc.319 In conclusion, the morphological testing devices which Sībawayhi uses are part of his wider strategy of confirming the validity of the set of morphological axioms which the theory recognizes. This validity is shown to apply at the level of attested forms as well as the speculative level of theoretically proposed ones. At both levels, the boundaries are determined by the morphological structure of Arabic words and patterns—which should always be respected (cf. “2 h” above)—to the 315 Ḫ alīl, ʿAyn I, 52–53; cf. Baalbaki (1998: 52–53); Sara (1991: 36–38); Talmon (1997: 137–138). Cf. chapter I, n. 91. 316 Kitāb IV, 432. 317 Cf. al-Nassir (1993: 19–20) for comments of later authors on these eight sounds. 318 Kitāb IV, 303–307. 319 Ibid., IV, 244, 245, 247, 249, 250, 255, 265–266, 268, 270, 274 respectively (semicolons in text indicate change of page). Also note that some patterns are described as permissible only if they are adjectives and not nouns or vice versa; cf. Uḍayma’s indices 48–62. The expression lā naʿlam fī l-kalām is also used by Sībawayhi to introduce nonexistent patterns in Arabic; cf. Kitāb IV, 248, 256, 260–263, 266–268, etc.

226

chapter three

exclusion of foreign words and of neologisms that do not conform to the morphological specifications of Arabic. 8. The Internal Unity of the Kitāb Sībawayhi’s Kitāb is certainly one of the earliest books, if not the earliest, in the history of Islamic book writing.320 Irrespective of the chronological issue, however, the Kitāb is undeniably a coherent opus whose author aims at demonstrating its unity of content and approach. One of the essential elements of Kitāb’s unity is that the same set of analytical tools (discussed in Chapter Two) is consistently used in the interpretation of both syntactical and morphological phenomena. Another essential element is the consistency of Sībawayhi’s analytical methods (discussed in Chapter Three) and the oneness of his approach to the attested material which makes up the corpus he refers to as kalām. To these two elements should be added the numerous cross-references Sībawayhi makes to earlier and/or later parts of his book.321 Some of these are references to considerably distant parts of the Kitāb, as in the case of the reference in the first volume to taswiya (equalization, mainly by hamza) which is discussed in the second and third volumes, and the reference to a previous kurrāsa (quire).322 Certain chapters include recurring cross-references. One such chapter is that which deals with the number of radicals that make up words (bāb ʿiddat mā yakūn ʿalayhi l-kalim) where reference is made in the discussion of several particles to the fact that they were discussed earlier.323 Furthermore, Sībawayhi often cites the same example with amazing consistency in separate parts of the Kitāb; cf. in ḫ ayran fa-ḫ ayrun wa-in šarran fa-šarrun;324 ammā anta munṭaliqan inṭalaqtu (maʿaka);325 inna Zaydan ẓarīfun wa-ʿAmrun;326 qāla Zaydun ʿAmrun/

320

Cf. above, 30. See, for example, Kitāb I, 21, 32, 53, 72, 83, 98, 100, 123, 182, 210, 259, 297, 321, 361, 376, 397, etc. For various issues related to the internal unity of the Kitāb, cf. Baalbaki (1996: 111–136). 322 For taswiya, cf. ibid., I, 236; II, 232; III, 170–172; and for kurrāsa, cf. III, 159 where reference is made to III, 9 ff. 323 Cf. ibid., IV, 217 (lām), 220 (am and aw), 222 (lā and kay), 228 (d̠ā, d̠ih, man and an), 231 (ilā). 324 Ibid., I, 258; III, 7, 113, 149. 325 Ibid., I, 293; III, 7, 149–150. 326 Ibid., I, 61; II, 144. 321

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

227

inna ʿAmran ḫ ayru l-nāsi;327 d̠ahabat baʿḍu aṣābiʿihi;328 inna/kaʾanna aḫūka ʿAbdallāhi;329 and min ʿan yamīnika.330 The recurrence of such amt̠ila is much more significant than the equally frequent recurrence of šawāhid because amt̠ila are the author’s own creation and, unlike šawāhid, do not have to be cited verbatim. Sībawayhi’s consistency in citing his amt̠ila is further proof of the internal unity of the Kitāb and of the conscious effort of its author to highlight this unity. The use of technical terms in the Kitāb provides further proof of its internal unity. We have already noted Sībawayhi’s consistency in using terms such as qiyās, ʿamal, manzila, mawḍiʿ, aṣl, tamt̠īl, naqḍ al-maʿnā, etc. In certain cases, two terms are consistently linked to or contrasted with a number of other terms or notions. This is exemplified by the terms aṣl and qiyās, both of which are opposed to šād̠d̠ and šawād̠d̠, linked to descriptions such as ḥ asan, ğayyid, ağwad, akt̠ar, etc., contrasted with dialects described as radīʾ, qabīḥ , etc., and associated either with forms which have not undergone a perceived change or with poetic license.331 From a different perspective, either aṣl or qiyās may occur side by side with another related concept, such as wağh which normally denotes the better of two possible options. Accordingly, a usage may be described as wağh and qiyās332 or as wağh and aṣl.333 Similarly, wağh itself is often accompanied by its synonym ḥ add in the description of some utterances,334 and it is therefore not surprising that ḥ add and aṣl occur side by side.335 The interrelatedness of the three terms aṣl, wağh and ḥ add may be further proven by their use as interchangeable terms, each of which occuring with a fixed term, such as maʿdūl (deviated). In a chapter which deals with feminine nouns that exhibit deviation from an assumed origin (bāb mā ğāʾa maʿdūlan ʿan ḥ addihi min al-muʾannat̠), the three terms are interchangeably used with maʿdūl, hence maʿdūl ʿan ḥ addihi, maʿdūl ʿan wağhihi wa-aṣlihi, and maʿdūl ʿan aṣlihi.336 Aṣl and wağh (but obviously not ḥ add) are also interchangeably used with

327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336

Ibid., I, 122; III, 142. Ibid., I, 51, 402. Ibid., I, 59; II, 131. Ibid., I, 420; IV, 228. See above, 103. Ibid., I, 210; II, 82; III, 329; cf. Baalbaki (1988: 167). Ibid., III, 274. Ibid., I, 53, 171; II, 51; III, 27. Ibid., III, 304. Ibid., III, 270, 272, 274–275 respectively.

228

chapter three

maḥ dūd, a synonym of maʿdūl, as in maḥ dūd ʿan wağhihi, maḥ dūdāni ʿan al-bināʾ allad̠ī huwa l-aṣl, and maḥ dūd ʿan aṣlihi.337 The ultimate proof of the internal unity of the Kitāb is furnished by the consistency of its author in his analysis of related phenomena which are discussed in disparate parts of the work. Following are two illustrative examples, one of which relates to bināʾ ʿāriḍ and the other to the concept of two elements which have the status of a single word: 1. The notion which the later grammarians call bināʾ ʿāriḍ (transient indeclinability) appears in Sībawayhi’s discussion of six separate items, namely, the vocative which consists of a single word (al-munādā l-mufrad), the noun of lā which consists of a single word (ism lā l-mufrad), compound numerals of the type ḫ amsata ʿašara, adverbs of the type qablu and baʿdu, ayy in constructions like iḍrib ayyuhum afḍalu, and nouns of the pattern faʿāli.338 Although these cases are discussed in scattered passages of the Kitāb, Sībawayhi’s approach to their analysis is remarkably consistent in two major aspects.339 First, he makes reference to their similarities in various parts of the discussion. He thus refers in the vocative to the adverbs,340 in the noun of lā to compound numerals,341 and in ayy to compound numerals as well.342 Hence, the first case is shown to be similar to the fourth, the second to the third, and the fifth to the third. Only the sixth case is not explicitly included. The second aspect of consistency is that similar arguments and terms appear in his discussion of the six cases. Thus, the vocative which ends with a ḍamma is said to have the status of the nominative topic (i.e. subject of a nominal sentence; bi-manzilat mā yartafiʿ bi-l-ibtidāʾ),343 and lā and its noun are said to be in the grammatical position of topicality ( fī mawḍiʿ ibtidāʾ).344 Similarly, lā and its noun are assigned the status of a single noun (bi-manzilat ism wāḥ id),345 as are ayyu and al-rağulu in yā ayyuhā

337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345

Ibid., III, 224, 226; IV, 409 respectively. See above, 159–161. Cf. Baalbaki (1990: 25–26). Kitāb II, 182–183, 199. Ibid., II, 274–275. Ibid., II, 400. Ibid., II, 183. Ibid., II, 274. Ibid., loc. cit.

sĪbawayhi’s analytical methods

229

l-rağulu,346 as well as the two elements of a compound numeral which are described as two words that were made to be one noun (ḥ arfāni ğuʿilā sman wāḥ idan).347 Furthermore, the vocative which ends with a ḍamma is said to have the status of sounds (bi-manzilat al-aṣwāt),348 and adverbs like qablu and baʿdu are also said to be similar to sounds (šubbihat bi-l-aṣwāt).349 These adverbs are also described as undefined (mubhama) and indeclinable ( ġayr mutamakkina), and the same two terms are used to describe compound numerals.350 Finally, lā, compound numerals and ayy are shown to be different from their counterparts (ḫūlifa bihi ʿan ḥ āl aḫ awātihi; ğāʾa mağīʾan lam tağiʾ aḫ awātuhu ʿalayhi illā qalīlan;351 cf. also the term maʿdūla in connection with the pattern faʿāli),352 hence their morphological and syntactical peculiarities. 2. Sībawayhi refers in various parts of the Kitāb to elements which coalesce into a single entity. Three basic groups may be distinguished in his discussion: (a) particles that are formed from the fusion of two elements (e.g. innamā and ḥ ayyaʿal); (b) particles, invariably ʿawāmil (operants), that are inseparable from their maʿmūlāt (operands) and which, together with these maʿmūlāt, are grammatically equivalent to a single word (e.g. an and the subjunctive verb after it, and generic lā with its noun); and (c) two nouns each of which exists as a separate entity, but which have the grammatical status of one noun (e.g. the construct and genitive, and compound numerals).353 Sībawayhi’s analysis of his data reveals striking consistency in his use of technical terms and syntactical arguments both in each group and across the three groups as well. He also makes frequent cross-references in discussing particular examples in each group to other examples which share a common feature, and the mention of one example often elicits the mention of a specific counterpart in the same group or in a different group. For example, the six constituents of the second group are kay, an (both of these two constituents govern the subjunctive verb), anna and its noun, relative pronouns and their clauses,

346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353

Ibid., II, 188. Ibid., III, 557; cf. III, 297: šayʾāni ğuʿilā šayʾan wāḥ idan. Ibid., II, 185. Ibid., III, 285–286. Ibid., III, 298. Ibid., III, 298; II, 400; cf. II, 274–275. Ibid., III, 270–280. For a detailed analysis of these three groups, see Baalbaki (1999a: 89 ff.)

230

chapter three

prepositions and genitives, generic lā and its noun. An and anna are often compared with each other, particularly in their being part of an infinitive,354 their inseparability from their maʿmūlāt,355 and the omission of the prepositions which precede them.356 They are both compared with the relative pronoun allad̠ī because each of the three shares with what follows it the status of a single noun.357 Furthermore, kay is compared with an as well as with anna.358 From the perspective of inseparability from their maʿmūlāt, an and its sister particles which govern the subjunctive are compared with prepositions since these are inseparable from their genitives.359 Similarly, comparison is made between generic lā and the preposition min concerning their inseparability from the element which follows them (i.e. the noun of lā and the genitive respectively).360 Generic lā is also compared with the preposition rubba because they both precede indefinite nouns.361 On a wider scale, generic lā and its noun are compared with the compound numeral ḫ amsata ʿašara (which represents a different type of coalescence) on the basis of their inseparability.362

354

Kitāb III, 119, 154. Ibid., III, 10. 356 Ibid., III, 154; cf. III, 127. 357 Ibid., III, 6; IV, 228. For the justification of our inclusion of relative pronouns with this group, cf. Baalbaki (1999a: 103, n. 10). 358 Ibid., I, 294; III, 110 respectively. 359 Ibid., III, 111. 360 Ibid., II, 276. 361 Ibid., II, 274; cf. II, 286. 362 Ibid., II, 276. 355

CHAPTER FOUR

COMPARISON WITH SUBSEQUENT AUTHORS 1. Introduction In the previous three chapters the background of the Kitāb and its author’s analytical tools and methods were discussed. We frequently compared Sībawayhi’s views with those of his predecessors, his contemporaries and subsequent grammarians therein. We pointed out in numerous instances the tremendous influence which the Kitāb had on the tradition as a whole, yet we also noted that Sībawayhi’s vivid analysis of speech as a process of communication which takes place in a particular context and the delicate balance he establishes between form and meaning often gave way to both an increasing interest in formal considerations at the expense of meaning and a speculative and uninspiring pedagogical approach to most morphological and syntactical issues. As far as terminology, arguments and set of analytical tools are concerned, the later grammarians were in general highly faithful to Sībawayhi’s legacy, and the Kitāb—apart from scattered comments attributed in most part to Sībawayhi’s Kufan rivals1—commanded the admiration of future generations. Only a few decades after the Kitāb was authored, Māzinī (d. 249/863) confidently proclaimed that anyone who intended, after Sībawayhi, to author a large book on grammar should be ashamed of himself (man arāda an yaʿmal kitāban kabīran fī l-naḥw baʿda Sībawayhi fa-l-yastaḥyi),2 and Ğāḥiẓ (d. 255/869) asserted that no grammar book ever matched the Kitāb and that all grammatical writings were dependent on it (lam yaktub al-nās fī-l-naḥw kitāban mit̠lahu wa-ğamīʿ kutub al-nās ʿalayhi ʿiyāl).3 Among the numerous statements of praise by later authors, the one by Ṣāʿid al-Andalusī (d. 462/1070) is most interesting since it places the Kitāb at the same level with Ptolemy’s Almagest and Aristotle’s Organon maintaining that each

Cf. Abū l-Ṭayyib, Marātib 140; Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 131; Suyūtị̄ , Iqtirāḥ 81. Sīrāfī, Aḫbār 50; Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 56. 3 Ibn Ḫ illikān, Wafayāt III, 463; see other testimonies in praise of the Kitāb in Ḫ izāna I, 371–372. 1

2

232

chapter four

of the three books did not leave out any of the truly essential elements to its field (lam yašid̠d̠ ʿanhu min uṣūl fannihi illā mā lā ḫ aṭar lahu).4 Indeed, the exhaustive contents of the Kitāb became an authoritative corpus which the grammarians observed, and it is remarkable that the basic axioms of the theory as presented by Sībawayhi were almost never seriously challenged throughout the tradition. In this regard, Versteegh asserts that “without exaggeration one could say that the entire linguistic tradition in Arabic is nothing but a huge commentary on the Kitāb Sîbawayhi”.5 This notwithstanding, it should be noted that a number of significant developments did take place after Sībawayhi, mostly in methodology rather than context, and more in the realm of syntax than in morphology. Some of these developments will be discussed in the next few sections of this chapter. Sībawayhi’s influence is not restricted to Basran grammarians as one may be led to conclude from their controversies with their Kufan counterparts. He is usually portrayed as the chief representative of Basran views, but despite of these controversies—many of which have their roots in the works of Sībawayhi, Farrāʾ and Mubarrad and are not a literary fiction invented by the grammarians after Mubarrad 6—the Kufan tradition owes a great deal to Sībawayhi and is in agreement with the basic assumptions of his grammatical theory. It is true that some Kufan terms differ from Basran ones and that the Kufans are generally portrayed as more tolerant of aberrant material than the Basrans, yet the two groups share most of their terms, analytical tools, šawāhid, etc. and apply the same methods of analysis to the same corpus based on almost identical axioms. No Kufan grammarian as far as we know has ever proposed, for example, an alternative division of the parts of speech to the one universally accepted in the general grammatical tradition, or questioned the centrality of qiyās, taʿlīl, aṣl, taqdīr, etc. to morphological and syntactical analysis. If we are to believe the statement attributed to one of the most fanatic Kufans, T̠aʿlab (d. 291/904)—on the authority of another Kufan, Salama b. ʿᾹṣim (d. 310/922)—when Sībawayhi’s Kufan contemporary, Farrāʾ (d. 207/822), died, a copy of the Kitāb was

Yāqūt, Muʿğam V, 2124. Versteegh (1997: 39). 6 Cf. Baalbaki (1981: 1–26) where thirty-seven controversial issues in Ibn al-Anbārī’s Inṣāf are shown to be based on the views of early authors of the second/eighth and third/ninth centuries as expressed in the extant primary sources of the period. 4 5

comparison with subsequent authors

233

found under his pillow.7 Irrespective of whether it is true or fabricated, this riwāya essentially shows—or is designed to show—how reliant on Sībawayhi’s Kitāb the author commonly acknowledged to be the founder of Kufan grammar is! Given the unrivaled status which the Kitāb enjoyed throughout the tradition, it naturally became the ultimate, even irrefutable, source of truth in grammatical matters. Later authors were not only keen to bring to their side the testimony of Sībawayhi, but often read into his text what could support their own interpretation of certain issues. Sībawayhi’s ideas were hotly debated in grammatical controversies such as those discussed in Ibn al-Anbārī’s (d. 577/1181) Inṣāf,8 and this has strongly confirmed the status of the Kitāb as the most inspiring grammatical work in the tradition. The following two examples illustrate how each of two opposing sides of a grammatical controversy uses the Kitāb in support of its own views: 1. In a chapter on toponyms entitled asmāʾ al-araḍīn, Sībawayhi notes that Hağar can be treated as feminine or masculine (yuʾannat̠ wa-yud̠akkar) and quotes a line by Farazdaq indicating its treatment as feminine (min Hağara).9 He then cites the proverb ka-ğālibi l-tamri ilā Hağar (“like a carrier of dates to Hağar”), but it is not clear whether the diptotic feminine form Hağara or the triptotic masculine form Hağarin should be read.10 Each of the two readings raises certain objections which we have discussed elsewhere.11 As far as later authors are concerned, there seems to be two “traditions” vis-à-vis the treatment of Hağar: a grammatical tradition and a lexicographic one, both of which cite Sībawayhi in support of their own view. The grammar books which mention the above proverb cite the diptotic form based on Sībawayhi’s text.12 In contrast, lexicographers also quote the text of the Kitāb but assert that the triptotic form Hağarin 7

Abū l-Ṭayyib, Marātib 139; cf. Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna I, 371. Other than the traditional controversies, note the twenty-nine passages from the Kitāb claimed by ʿAbdalkarīm (1986) to have given rise to incorrect interpretations of Sībawayhi’s text and to disputes relating to these interpretations. 9 Kitāb III, 243. 10 Although the various editions have Hağara (i.e. diptotic feminine), this reading may well not have been specifically chosen by Sībawayhi since the consonantal writing of the word does admit the triptotic masculine form Hağarin. 11 Baalbaki (1999c: 9–10). 12 Cf., for example, Zağğāğ, Mā yanṣarif 71–72; Zağğāğī, Ğumal 231–232; Šantamarī, Nukat II, 836. 8

234

chapter four

is the correct one. Ibn Sīda (d. 458/1066) notes that Sībawayhi’s annexation of the expression yā fatā to the proverb proves that what precedes it (i.e. Hağar) must be nunated since the expression is intended to avoid ending the utterance with nunation.13 Ibn Sīda’s text is also quoted in Ibn Manẓūr’s (d. 711/1311) Lisān (HĞR) and Zabīdī’s (d. 1205/1790) Tāğ (HĞR), whereas those lexicons which do not mention Sībawayhi still cite the triptotic form Hağarin.14 2. The grammarians widely differ concerning the permissibility or otherwise of a number of constructions in which kāna or any of its sisters are used (for which see Section 3 below). One such construction is qāʾiman laysa Zaydun where laysa is preceded by its own predicate but precedes its subject. The sources report that this construction is allowed by Ibn Barhān (d. 456/1064), Zamaḫšarī (d. 538/1144), Šalawbīn (d. 645/1247), and Ibn ʿUṣfūr (d. 669/1271), but not by the Kufans, Mubarrad (d. 285/898), Zağğāğ (d. 311/923), Ibn al-Sarrāğ (d. 316/929), Sīrāfī (d. 368/979), Ğurğānī (d. 471/1078), and Ibn Mālik (d. 672/1274).15 Obviously, the weight of Sībawayhi’s testimony can tip the balance in favor of the view that is commensurate with it, and this is the reason why each group, as Ibn ʿAqīl reports,16 ascribes to Sībawayhi a view similar to its own. What is most interesting, however, is the fact that Sībawayhi nowhere addresses this issue. As Ğurğānī asserts, the issue is not mentioned at all in the Kitāb, and some grammarians have tried to infer Sībawayhi’s view on it. 17 This is supported by the assertion of Ibn al-Nāẓim (d. 686/1287) that grammarians who allow the predicate of laysa to precede it support their view by citing Sībawayhi’s acceptance of related constructions—such as a-Zaydan lasta mit̠lahu in which laysa is preceded by a noun to which the operand of its predicate refers.18 It is clear that both parties

Ibn Sīda, Muḥ kam IV, 114; cf. Ibn Sīda, Muḫ aṣsạ ṣ XVII, 47. Ibn ʿAbbād, Muḥ īṭ III, 373; Ğawharī, Ṣaḥ āḥ (HĞR). A notable exception to the lexicographic tradition is Fayrūzābādī’s Qāmūs (HĞR) whose vocalized editions have Hağara. 15 Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 128; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 117. Note that Fārisī is placed by Ibn ʿAqīl in the first camp and by Suyūṭī in the second. For further details, see Baalbaki (2004: 44 and n. 16). 16 Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 128–129. 17 wa-laysa li-ṣāḥ ib al-Kitāb fī d̠ālika naṣṣ (Muqtaṣid I, 409); cf. Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf I, 160: wa-zaʿama baʿḍuhum annahu mad̠hab Sībawayhi wa-laysa bi-ṣaḥ īḥ wa-l-ṣaḥ īḥ annahu laysa lahu fī d̠ālika naṣs.̣ 18 Ibn al-Nāẓim, Šarḥ 135. 13 14

comparison with subsequent authors

235

in this controversy share a common desire to claim legitimacy by demonstrating that their view is in line with that of Sībawayhi’s. It is beyond the scope of this book to examine in any detail all the developments which took place in grammatical writing after Sībawayhi. Instead, we shall demonstrate how, within a period of one century only, Mubarrad’s (d. 285/898) approach to grammar differed from that of his predecessor’s in many aspects but did not introduce any significant change to his overall grammatical theory. We shall then examine how Sībawayhi’s originality gave way in later works to an approach that is largely characterized by the predominance of formal considerations, and highlight those attempts of a few authors who tried to revive the role of meaning in linguistic study. Before all this, it may be appropriate to point out that the differences between Sībawayhi and the later authors—which are largely due to the degree of strictness with which they apply the same set of analytical tools and methods to grammatical study—should not obliterate the fact that the main features of the whole tradition are basically those of the Kitāb. Most important among these features are the following:19 1. The separation between philological and grammatical enquiry: Throughout the tradition, grammatical works maintained Sībawayhi’s exclusion of issues that belong to the realm of luġa (philology, lexicography) rather than naḥw (grammar).20 2. The inclusion of morphology (ṣarf ): In spite of the early realization that morphological topics can be studied in isolation of syntax, as in Māzinī’s (d. 249/863) Taṣrīf, most later authors followed Sībawayhi’s example and included in their works both naḥw and ṣarf, usually in this order. 3. The linguistic corpus: Apart from the addition of some šawāhid mainly from poetry, the later sources largely adopted Sībawayhi’s corpus of linguistic data. The fact that the process of data collection (ğamʿ al-luġa) was mostly achieved by Sībawayhi’s contemporaries, and the insistence of the mainstream Basran scholars that the corpus should be considered closed by the end of the second/eighth century at least

19 20

Cf. Baalbaki (1995a: 128–129). For the distinction between these two areas of linguistic study, cf. above, 11.

236

chapter four

in the urban areas (amṣār)21 meant that there was but limited room to expand Sībawayhi’s material which became a definitive corpus for later authors. Only in citation of prophetic tradition (ḥ adīt̠) was there any considerable departure from the Kitāb, but this development is of relatively minor importance because it remained far from being universally accepted and was harshly criticized by several authors,22 let alone that the earliest proponents of citing ḥ adīt̠ in grammatical analysis were late sixth/twelfth century grammarians, such as Suhaylī (d. 581/1185) and Ibn Ḫ arūf (d. between 605/1209 and 610/1213). 4. Arrangement of material: Although subsequent sources, as early as Mubarrad’s Muqtaḍab, differ from the Kitāb in this area more than any other, the general organization of material in these sources, as noted by Owens, is ordered by certain theoretical precepts of Arabic grammar.23 Since these precepts are the same as those adopted by Sībawayhi, it is not surprising that the essential elements of material arrangement in later sources generally conform to the basic structural aspects of the Kitāb (e.g. to start with word classification and end with phonology; to discuss nouns before verbs and verbs before particles in line with their hierarchical arrangement in terms of declinability, strength, etc.). 5. Analytical tools and methods: As pointed out earlier, the bulk of Sībawayhi’s analytical tools and methods were adopted in their entirety by the later sources. Much of the difference between Sībawayhi and the later grammarians can be ascribed to the degree to which these grammarians applied Sībawayhian notions like qiyās, samāʿ and taʿlīl. This notwithstanding, there was a gradual degeneration of Sībawayhi’s vivid and engaging discussion of linguistic phenomena and an increasing interest in standardization and normalization with less emphasis on meaning. 2. From Sībawayhi to Mubarrad Among the several third/ninth century grammarians whose works have reached us, Mubarrad (d. 285/898) is unquestionably the most influential figure, and his voluminous book al-Muqtaḍab readily lends

21 22 23

Cf. above, 40. Cf. Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna I, 9–15. Owens (1988: 29).

comparison with subsequent authors

237

itself to comparison with the Kitāb. Unlike other sources of the period, such as Farrāʾ’s (d. 207/822) Maʿānī l-Qurʾān, Aḫfaš’s (d. 215/830) Maʿānī l-Qurʾān, and Abū ʿUbayda’s (d. 209/824) Mağāz al-Qurʾān, which are Qurʾānic commentaries, Māzinī’s (d. 249/863) Taṣrīf, which deals exclusively with morphology, and T̠aʿlab’s (d. 291/904) Mağālis, which is a miscellany of linguistic observations that randomly occur in instructional seminars, the contents of Mubarrad’s Muqtaḍab largely resemble those of the Kitāb and thus offer a good opportunity for the comparison of the two authors in their approach to an almost identical corpus. The most striking development from Sībawayhi to Mubarrad is unquestionably the latter’s approach to qiyās and samāʿ. By expanding the role of qiyās as an arbiter in the acceptance of forms and utterances, and by giving less prominence than Sībawayhi did to usage that is attested through samāʿ, Mubarrad seems to have changed the delicate balance Sībawayhi established between the two notions. The expanding role of qiyās in Mubarrad’s system is reflected in terms such as manhağ al-qiyās (the method of qiyās) and ḥ aqīqat al-qiyās24 (the essence of qiyās), which do not occur in the Kitāb. On several occasions, Mubarrad asserts that views supported by the qiyās which he employs are the only correct and acceptable ones. For example, he describes the view that alif and yāʾ in the dual are a sign of inflection (dalīl ʿalā l-iʿrāb) but not inflection itself as the only view which qiyās admits (lā yaṣluḥ fī l-qiyās illā mā d̠akarnā).25 A similar description is given to the view that the relative pronoun and its clause are equivalent to one noun and that their order is irreversible (fa-hād̠ā l-qawl al-ṣaḥ īḥ allad̠ī lā yağūz fī l-qiyās ġayruhu).26 Ultimately, qiyās is used as a purely intellectual process for resolving some intricate issues which pertain to a particular bāb (cf., for example, the expression wa-innamā tustaḫrağ hād̠ihi l-masāʾil bi-l-taftīš wa-l-qiyās,27 where qiyās is used side by side with taftīš which indicates a mental exercise for the investigation of complex issues or masāʾil). Furthermore, Mubarrad resorts to qiyās in accepting forms that run contrary to what is attested in usage. In commenting on Mubarrad’s view that adjectives such as aḥ mar should be treated as triptotes if they are transformed into proper nouns and 24 25 26 27

Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 147; II, 177. Ibid., II, 155. Ibid., III, 197. Ibid., III, 243.

238

chapter four

then made to be indefinite (id̠ā summiya bi-aḥ mar wa-mā ašbahahu t̠umma nukkira),28 Ibn Wallād (d. 332/944) notes in his Intiṣār the difference between Sībawayhi and Mubarrad is the value each of them attaches to samāʿ and qiyās. He asserts that Sībawayhi’s argument in treating the proper noun aḥ mar as diptote rests on the consensus of the Arabs and that Sībawayhi and all other grammarians should follow the kalām of the Arabs since it is their language that they seek to emulate. In refuting Mubarrad’s position, Ibn Wallād asserts that no grammarian may apply a qiyās, even a fine one (wa-in ḥ asuna), which leads to anything other than the language of the Arabs, since this is contrary to the very basis of the craft of grammar (wa-huwa ġayr mā banaw ʿalayhi ṣināʿatahum).29 In another passage of Intiṣār, Ibn Wallād harshly criticizes Mubarrad for making his own grammatical judgment an aṣl (base) and the speech of Arabs a farʿ (subsidiary) and for consequently finding no fault in accusing them of error if they use a farʿ which does not agree with his own aṣl.30 The case of the pronominal suffix after lawlā is particularly interesting. We have previously discussed Sībawayhi’s view that the qiyās is to use independent nominative pronouns (e.g. lawlā anā, lawlā anta, etc.), but that it is also permissible to use dependent or suffixed pronouns (e.g. lawlāya, lawlāka, etc.).31 Sībawayhi does admit that lawlā may be followed by the genitive if pronouns are suffixed to it and thus accepts an anomaly that is restricted to lawlā, but he obviously avoids accepting that pronominal suffixes of the genitive can replace those of the nominative since this would impact other forms and constructions. Another view on the matter is expressed by Aḫfaš (d. 215/830), namely, that the suffixed pronoun after lawlā is nominative although its form is the same as that of the genitive suffixed pronoun.32 This view is identical to the one which Sībawayhi ascribes to some people (nās) and harshly criticizes as flawed. Contrary to Sībawayhi and Aḫfaš, Mubarrad avoids the admission of either of the two anomalies which the views of his two predecessors imply. In fact, he mentions both of them by name, refutes 28 Ibid., III, 312. Note here also the expression wa-lā arāhu yağūz fī l-qiyās ġayruhu. 29 Ibn Wallād, Intiṣār 136–137. 30 Ibid., 71. 31 Cf. above, 136. 32 Note that this view is not found in Aḫfaš’s Maʿānī but is attributed to him (and often to the Kufans) in several sources; cf. Mubarrad, Kāmil III, 345; Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf II, 687; Ibn Hišām, Muġnī I, 274; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 302–303; Suyūṭī, Hamʿ II, 33.

comparison with subsequent authors

239

their views and asserts that the only permissible usage is lawlā anta, etc. since the use of lawlāka, etc. is an unacceptable error (ḫ aṭaʾ lā yaṣluḥ ).33 The evidence against Mubarrad, however, is overwhelming, and there are numerous šawāhid and amt̠ila in the sources, including the Kitāb, which attest to the use of lawlāka, etc. In fact, later sources indicate that both the Basran and Kufan scholars dismiss Mubarrad’s view on the grounds of attested usage (wa-rudda bi-ttifāq aʾimmat al-Baṣriyyīn wa-l-Kūfiyyīn ʿalā riwāyatihi ʿan al-ʿArab).34 Mubarrad’s rejection of such a widely attested phenomenon, as opposed to Sībawayhi’s accommodative position which acknowledges its presence and interprets it in accordance with the notion of “basic rules”, demonstrates the shift which Mubarrad’s approach represents towards the rejection of recorded material that apparently contradicts the norm. Unlike Sībawayhi who normally interprets anomalous material in order to bring it in line with qiyās or accepts its riwāya on condition that its usage not be generalized by analogical extension, Mubarrad often rejects anomalous usage which, though attested, does not conform to the norm supported by samāʿ and uninterrupted qiyās (al-qiyās al-muṭtạ rid). Commenting on the use in poetry of tamurrūna l-diyāra instead of the more regular tamurrūna bi-l-diyāri (“You pass by the abodes”), he says that correct samāʿ and uninterrupted qiyās ought not be undermined by an aberrant reported usage (wa-l-samāʿ al-ṣaḥ īḥ wa-l-qiyās al-muṭtạ rid lā taʿtariḍ ʿalayhi l-riwāya l-šād̠da̠ ).35 An almost identical expression is also used in connection with the form umwān instead of imwān (pl. of ama, “female slave”) which occurs in a riwāya of a line by al-Qattāl al-Kilābī.36 On one occasion, he discusses the line ḥ ad̠irun umūran etc. cited by Sībawayhi (for which see below) and comments that qiyās is the arbiter in the acceptability or unacceptability of doubtful šawāhid (wa-innamā l-qiyās al-ḥ ākim ʿalā mā yağīʾ min hād̠ā l-ḍarb wa-ġayrihi).37 Elsewhere, and unlike Sībawayhi who stops short of dismissing the weaker of two attested riwāyas, Mubarrad does not hesitate to pronounce the weaker one as a repugnant error (ḫ aṭaʾ fāḥ iš) and accuses the grammarians who accept it of being unable to support

33 34 35 36 37

Mubarrad, Kāmil I, 345–346. Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ II, 34. Mubarrad, Kāmil I, 34. Ibid., I, 54–55. Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 116–117; cf. Kitāb I, 113.

240

chapter four

their view by qiyās.38 His expression fa-riwāya bi-riwāya wa-l-qiyās ḥ ākim baʿdu (“Each of the two riwāyas contradicts the other, and qiyās is hence the arbiter”) clearly indicates how qiyās may be used either to accept or reject attested usage. Mubarrad’s approach relative to that of Sībawayhi’s is thus characterized by more reliance on qiyās and less respect for samāʿ, and this naturally led to more frequent dismissal of attested usage. To be sure, this trend was staunchly upheld in most later sources. For example, Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī (d. 377/987) is reported by his student Ibn Ğinnī (d. 392/1002) to have said that he would rather commit fifty errors related to luġa (i.e. riwāya as in Yāqūt’s text) than commit a single error related to qiyās.39 As far as dismissing usage supported by riwāya is concerned, there are only four such instances in the Kitāb. These are: (1) innahum ağmaʿūna d̠āhibūna, where the corroborative is expected to be ağmaʿīna because the corroborated suffix is in the accusative; (2) nuwayb, as the diminutive of nāb (whose root is nyb) instead of the expected nuyayb; (3) imperative forms like idʿih instead of udʿuh, where the ʿayn is followed by a kasra based on the wrong assumption that it was originally a sukūn which had to be changed in order to prevent a consonant cluster; and (4) maṣāʾib, plural of muṣība, instead of maṣāwib (which is also attested), due to the assumption that the singular is of the pattern faʿīla whereas it is actually of the pattern muf ʿila.40 Mubarrad, in his only two passages which correspond to Sībawayhi’s second and fourth examples, seems to agree with Sībawayhi’s position.41 But comparison between the two authors clearly shows that, on several occasions, Mubarrad dismisses attested usage which his predecessor either considers acceptable or criticizes but does not reject. Following are a few examples: 1. Mubarrad rejects (cf. mardūd) Bakr b. Wāʾil’s treatment of the kāf in the second person masculine plural suffix in a manner similar to that of the hāʾ in the third person masculine plural suffix.42 Sībawayhi, on the other hand, describes aḥ lāmikim instead of aḥ lāmikum as very

38

Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 175. Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ II, 88; Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 233; Yāqūt, Muʿğam II, 819. 40 Kitāb II, 155; III, 462; IV, 160, 356. 41 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 280 where the diminutive form nuyayb is cited, and I, 123 where maṣāʾib is described as wrong (ġalaṭ). 42 Ibid., I, 269–70. 39

comparison with subsequent authors

241

bad (radīʾa ğiddan) but stops short of rejecting it, most probably because it is attested in a line of poetry which he cites.43 2. Mubarrad describes as impermissible (ġayr ğāʾiz) constructions such as ğāʾa amatuka and qāma Hindun where a real or natural feminine (taʾnīt̠ ḥ aqīqī) is preceded by a masculine verb.44 In contrast, Sībawayhi reports this usage and accepts it although he notes that the further the noun is separated from the verb (as in ḥ aḍara l-qāḍiya mraʾatun), the better the construction becomes.45 3. Mubarrad rejects the form furayziq which some Arabs use as the diminutive of farazdaq and says that it is not the qiyās and that it resembles wrong usage (šabīh bi-l-ġalaṭ).46 The correct form, according to him, is furayzid (which is also attested) because final consonants are usually dropped in the diminutives of quinqueliterals (cf. ʿandalīb/ʿunaydil). Sībawayhi mentions the two forms furayziq and furayzid, accepts both of them, but considers the latter and similar forms to be more in line with qiyās (aqyas).47 4. Mubarrad reports that some Arabs omit the jurative particle wāw, as in al-Lāhi la-af ʿalanna, and says this is neither good in qiyās nor frequent in usage.48 In spite of asserting that this usage is actually attested, he insists that it is impermissible (wa-innamā d̠akarnāhu li-annahu šayʾ qad qīla wa-laysa bi-ğāʾiz ʿindī), based on the principle that no preposition may preserve its government if it is elided and not replaced by a substitute (ʿiwaḍ). In contrast, Sībawayhi reports this usage, accepts it, and justifies it as a form of taḫfīf (lightening) which is similar to the omission of rubba after jurative wāw.49 It should be noted that there are cases in which Mubarrad seems to allow a certain usage which Sībawayhi rejects. Further scrutiny of such cases, however, shows that Mubarrad’s position is not supported by actual samāʿ. For example, he allows id̠ and Tamīmī mā to be followed by conditional particles,50 as opposed to Sībawayhi who rejects, for

43

Kitāb IV, 197. Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 146; cf. III, 349 where Mubarrad restricts this usage to poetic license. 45 Kitāb II, 38. 46 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 249. 47 Kitāb III, 448–449. 48 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 336. 49 Kitāb III, 498. 50 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 61, 300; cf. Ibn Wallād, Intiṣār 118. 44

242

chapter four

instance, constructions like a-tad̠kuru id̠ in taʾtinā naʾtika.51 Mubarrad does not report any attested usage on which he bases his opinion, but he most probably relies on qiyās, particularly since he mentions this issue under masāʾil where artificially made constructions are most likely to be discussed. A similar example is that he allows the formation of diminutives for the names of the seven days of the week and calls Sībawayhi’s rejection of this a repugnant error (ḫ aṭaʾ fāḥ iš).52 Mubarrad produces no evidence for this from the speech of the Arabs and obviously relies on qiyās as shown in his argument which states that the permissibility of forming diminutives for yawm (day) and layla (night) should apply to the names of the days of the week. Another strategy which Mubarrad adopts in his rejection of attested material is very frequently encountered in subsequent sources and generally identified with Basran strictness in accepting linguistic material which breaches the norm. This is the rejection of riwāya, particularly in poetry, on the assumption that it is unattributed to an identifiable source, invented by the grammarians in support of their views, or represents later usage by the muwalladūn after the period known as ʿuṣūr al-iḥtiğāğ.53 The most significant examples in Mubarrad’s work are those in which he rejects šawāhid cited by Sībawayhi54 as they demonstrate the difference in position between the two men vis-à-vis acceptance of attested material. Examples of this type include the following: 1. One of the unattributed lines of the Kitāb is cited by Sībawayhi for the expression ḥ ad̠irun umūran lā tuḍīru (“Very cautious of things not to be feared”) and is described by Mubarrad as forged and recent (wa-hād̠ā bayt mawḍūʿ muḥ dat̠).55 In a rare instance, there are other grammarians who follow suit and question the authenticity of Sībawayhi’s šāhid.56

51

Kitāb III, 75. Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 276; Ibn Wallād, Intiṣār 158–159; Kitāb III, 480. 53 Cf. above, 40 ff. 54 Other than the Kitāb, Mubarrad rejects as wrong (ḫ aṭaʾ) the riwāya which he attributes (Kāmil III, 223) to aṣḥ āb al-ḥ adīt̠ (transmitters of prophetic tradition) of a line of poetry; cf. Kāmil III, 356 where he describes as ḫ aṭaʾ wa-ġalaṭ another riwāya of theirs, this time in the text of a ḥ adīt̠. Other instances of Mubarrad’s rejection of riwāyas which do not conform with qiyās are cited by Abū Ğanāḥ (1980: 53 ff.). 55 Kitāb I, 113; Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 116–117. 56 Cf. Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna VIII, 169–172. See also Ğumʿa (1989: 230–233). 52

comparison with subsequent authors

243

2. Mubarrad cites two of Sībawayhi’s šawāhid in which the li- of command (lām al-amr) is implicit in poetic license.57 He accepts only the first of them—in which yabki appears instead of li-yabki (“may he cry”!) but only after interpreting it as sylleptic (ḥ umila ʿalā l-maʿnā). As for the second line whose second hemistich is Muḥ ammadu tafdi nafsaka kullu nafsin (“O Muḥammad! May every soul be a ransom to yours”), Mubarrad describes it as unknown (laysa bi-maʿrūf ) although it is found in the Kitāb. The use of laysa bi-maʿrūf, as Ibn Hišām explains in commenting on Mubarrad’s position, is a reference to the poet,58 and Mubarrad obviously does not hesitate to dismiss the line on these grounds in spite of its acceptance by Sībawayhi in poetry only. 3. Sībawayhi cites Aws b. Ḥ ağar’s line which begins with tuwāhiqu riğlāhā yadāhā (“Her legs and arms move in unison”), where yadāhā is in the nominative because although it is grammatically a direct object, the reciprocal action of the legs and arms implies that it is also a subject of the verb wāhaqa, of the pattern fāʿala which indicates reciprocity.59 Mubarrad, however, dismisses the riwāya of the line and accuses those who accept it of error.60 Mubarrad’s rejection of attested usage is well-documented in another area, that of qirāʾāt or Qurʾānic readings. Sībawayhi’s position vis-à-vis qirāʾāt which do not conform to the norms of usage is not very clear, as we argued elsewhere,61 but it seems that if he indeed dismisses any qirāʾa he does so indirectly, that is by sounding his disapproval of the usage itself without reference to a particular qirāʾa. Mubarrad, however, in line with his uncompromising position of rejecting attested material incompatible with qiyās, frequently and openly opposes certain qirāʾāt and even ridicules the qurrāʾ who introduced them. The details of Mubarrad’s position are discussed elsewhere,62 and it should be sufficient 57

Kitāb III, 8–9; Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 132–133. Ibn Hišām, Muġnī I, 224–225; cf. Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna IX, 14. 59 Kitāb I, 287; cf. Naḥḥās, Šarḥ 119; Sīrāfī, Abyāt I, 273–274. 60 Mubarrad argues that if the riwāya of the line were to be acceptable, then one should accept a construction like ḍāraba ʿAbdullāhi Zaydun in which both proper nouns are in the nominative since ḍāraba (to fight with) indicates reciprocity as tuwāhiqu does (Muqtaḍab III, 285). But it should be noted that Sībawayhi’s citing of the line along with other similar lines without any example from prose indicates that he reserves this usage to poetic license. 61 Baalbaki (1985: 11–32, esp. 17–21). 62 Ibid., 21–24. 58

244

chapter four

here to point out that he describes Nāfiʿ’s qirāʾa of maʿāʾiš (“means of fulfillment of life”; Q 7: 10), instead of maʿāyiš, as wrong (ġalaṭ) and accuses Nāfiʿ of being ignorant of Arabic (wa-lam yakun lahu ʿilm bi-lʿArabiyya).63 He also accuses Ibn Marwān of being ignorant of Arabic and describes as a glaring solecism (laḥ n fāḥ iš) his reading hāʾulāʾi banātī hunna aṭhara lakum (“Here are my daughters: they are purer for you [if you marry]”; Q 11: 78) instead of aṭharu.64 Other than the relationship between qiyās and samāʿ, Mubarrad’s application of the notions of ʿamal (government) and taʿlīl (causation) is characterized by an increase in the level of “complexity” and “sophistication”, so to speak, compared to that of Sībawayhi’s. As with qiyās and samāʿ, the change which took place from Sībawayhi to Mubarrad in the approach to ʿamal and taʿlīl represents the first stage in a trend that left its mark on the tradition as a whole and made the study of grammar generally synonymous with complexity of approach, farfetchedness of argumentation and reliance on prescriptive criteria. As far as ʿamal is concerned, and in spite of the broad agreement between Sībawayhi and Mubarrad in identifying the ʿawāmil (operants) to which formal phenomena are ascribed,65 the terminology which Mubarrad uses reveals the development which occurred in this concept since the time of Sībawayhi. Not only does Mubarrad speak of ʿawāmil al-af ʿāl and ʿawāmil al-asmāʾ,66 but he introduces other terms that are not found in the Kitāb to express various aspects of the expansion of the notion of ʿāmil, such as taṣarruf al-ʿāmil (plasticity of the operant)67 to express its ability to govern in syntactically different positions of the construction, 68 and al-ʿaṭf ʿalā ʿāmilayni to describe cases in which two operants are

63 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab I, 123; cf. Kitāb IV, 355 where maʿāyiš rather than maʿāʾiš is said to be used by the Arabs. Note that the qirāʾa of maʿāʾiš is attributed, on the authority of Nāfiʿ and Ibn ʿĀmir, to Aʿrağ, Zayd b. ʿAlī and Aʿmaš; cf. Abū Ḥ ayyān, Baḥ r IV, 271. 64 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab IV, 105. 65 They agree, for example, that an implicit verb causes the accusative in the vocative (Kitāb II, 182; Muqtaḍab IV, 202) and that ibtidāʾ causes the nominative in the mubtadaʾ (Kitāb II, 127; Muqtaḍab II, 49). There are, however, certain ʿawāmil on which the two grammarians differ. For example, Sībawayhi identifies the ʿāmil which causes the accusative in the thing excepted (mustat̠nā) as what precedes the exceptive particle illā (Kitāb II, 331), whereas Mubarrad believes that it is an implicit verb (Muqtaḍab IV, 390). 66 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 6, 7, 10, 38, 75, 345, etc. 67 For the concept of taṣarruf, cf. above, 130 ff. 68 Cf. Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab IV, 300 where the term taṣarruf is applied to the operant (i.e. verb) which governs the circumstantial accusative; cf. IV, 165.

comparison with subsequent authors

245

elided after a conjunction.69 Another expression used by Mubarrad but not Sībawayhi is bāb al-ʿawāmil 70 to refer to a group of operants which includes kāna, its sisters (aḫ awātuhā) and what resembles them (wa-mā ašbahahā). This shows how ʿawāmil can be referred to as a “class” in its own right—an essential step towards the genre of grammatical writing devoted to ʿawāmil. Furthermore, argumentation reminiscent of kalām (scholastic theology) is used in connection with ʿawāmil, as in the passage fa-id̠ā ğaʿalta lahā ʿawāmil taʿmal fīhā lazimaka an tağʿal li-ʿawāmilihā ʿawāmil wa-kad̠ālika li-ʿawāmil ʿawāmilihā ilā mā lā nihāya (“If you assign to them [i.e. verbs] operants to govern them, then you need to assign operants to their operants and also operants to those operants and so on indefinitely”).71 In a wider context, Mubarrad’s inclusion of arguments drawn from kalām and manṭiq represents a significant departure from the type of argumentation prevalant in the Kitāb and is an early sample of a trend that increasingly introduced elements of logic into the study of grammar. Other than the example cited above, a remarkable passage from this perspective in Muqtaḍab is the one in which Mubarrad arranges definite and indefinite nouns according to the degree of their definiteness and indefiniteness—an issue not dealt with in the Kitāb. He introduces the discussion as follows: fa-l-šayʾ aʿamm mā takallamta bihi wa-l-ğism aḫ aṣṣ minhu wa-l-ḥ ayawān aḫ aṣṣ min al-ğism wa-l-insān aḫ aṣṣ min al-ḥ ayawān wa-l-rağul aḫ aṣṣ min al-insān wa-rağul ẓarīf aḫ aṣṣ min rağul wa-ʿtabir hād̠ā bi-wāḥ ida bi-annaka taqūl kull rağul insān wa-lā taqūl kull insān rağul (“The thing is the most general aspect; body is more specific; animal is more specific than body; human being is more specific than animal; man is more specific than human being; pleasant man is more specific than man. Do take into account this particular illustration: you can say: every man is a human being, but you cannot say: every human being is a man”).72 Similar statements frequently occur

69 An example of this is ḍarabtu Zaydan fī l-dāri wa-l-ḥ uğrati ʿAmran where both fī and ḍarabtu are elided in the latter part of the construction. See this and other examples in Mubarrad, Kāmil I, 287–288; III, 99–100 and Muqtaḍab IV, 195; cf. Ibn Wallād, Intiṣār 13–14. 70 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab IV, 317. 71 Ibid., IV, 80. 72 Ibid., IV, 280.

246

chapter four

in the later sources73 as more authors apply aspects of Aristotelian logic in their study of grammar.74 Compared to Sībawayhi’s approach to taʿlīl, Mubarrad’s shows a marked development. Other than the use of ʿilla in technical terms which specify the type of cause under consideration (e.g. ʿillat al-labs “ʿilla of ambiguity”),75 the term itself acquires the meaning of “quality” or “trait” in some passages. For example, he explains that the closest point of articulation to that of hamza is that of hāʾ and alif and says: wa-lahumā ʿillatāni našraḥ uhumā (“and these two qualities of theirs we shall explain”).76 These two ʿillas refer to the phonetic characteristics of hāʾ and alif, and no reference to causation is made with regard to the two phonemes. The term ʿilla—in the plural form, ʿilal—can also refer to the details of a particular bāb, as in the following cross-reference in Kāmil to the bāb of anna and inna in Muqtaḍab: wa-hād̠ā l-bāb qad šaraḥ nāhu fī l-kitāb fī bāb anna wa-inna bi-ğamīʿ ʿilalihi (“and we have explained this bāb with all its details in the chapter on anna and inna in Muqtaḍab).77 A similar cross-reference within Muqtaḍab is wa-hād̠ā yušraḥ fī bāb ʿalā ḥiyālihi bi-ğamīʿ ʿilalihi (“and this will be explained with all its details in a separate chapter”).78 The shift in meaning from “cause” to “quality” or “detail” shows how the concept of ʿilla, which Mubarrad is so keen to apply to linguistic phenomena, became inseparable in his approach from these phenomena so that it may be used to refer to them rather than to their causes. This interpretation is supported by expressions of the type al-ʿilla ğāriya fīhi or al-ʿilla qāʾima fīhi,79 where the cause seems to be an inherent part of the usage. Another aspect of development related to ʿilla is the expansion of its application by Mubarrad in comparison with Sībawayhi. Three major

73 Cf., for example, Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ V, 88; Ušmūnī, Šarḥ I, 47. See also Abū l-Baqāʾ, Kulliyyāt 358. 74 For example, Rummānī (d. 384/944) is said to have combined logic with grammar to the extent that his contemporary, Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī (d. 377/987), is reported to have made the following observation: “If grammar is what Rummānī advocates, then what we have of it is nil, and if grammar is what we advocate, then what he has of it is nil” (Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 234; Suyūṭī, Buġya II, 181). For a discussion of the influence of Aristotelian logic on Arabic grammar, see Elamrani-Jamal (1983). 75 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 142. 76 Ibid., I, 155; cf. III, 167: fa-qad bānat bi-ʿilla laysat fī ġayrihā, where ʿilla also means “quality” or “trait” rather than “cause”. 77 Mubarrad, Kāmil I, 83. 78 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 275; cf. II, 280. 79 Ibid., III, 166; IV, 18.

comparison with subsequent authors

247

features may be noted here,80 namely, (1) that in several cases, Mubarrad assigns a ʿilla to a phenomenon for which Sībawayhi does not cite one (e.g. the ʿilla for sukūn in the third person masculine plural suffix of the past verb—as in ḍarabū whose final wāw is traditionally described as sākin—in contrast to the fatḥ a in the third person feminine plural suffix—as in ḍarabna;81 for a number of peculiarities of numerals;82 for the accusative in the noun after interrogative kam, in contrast to the genitive after predicative or exclamatory kam;83 and for the ḍamma in the vocative of the type yā rağulu);84 (2) that many of the phenomena to which Sībawayhi assigns one ʿilla are explained by Mubarrad with reference to two or more ʿillas (e.g. the ʿilla of the fatḥ a in the imperfect to which energetic nūn is suffixed,85 and the ʿilla for the final kasra of feminine nouns of the pattern faʿāli;86 cf. also the notion of istiqṣāʾ al-ʿilla, i.e. exhausting the causation related to a particular issue);87 and (3) that many of the ʿilal which Mubarrad assigns are more complex and qiyās-dependent than those assigned by Sībawayhi (cf. Ibn Wallād’s comment on the ʿilla of istit̠qāl ‘heaviness’, which Sībawayhi cites in the case of the elision of one of two consecutive nūns, as being an established principle supported by linguistic intuition, whereas Mubarrad resorts to qiyās and argues that the omission of the nūn from certain verbal forms—such as lan taḍribī—is naẓīr ‘equivalent’ to the fatḥ a in other forms—such as lan taḍriba).88 Mubarrad’s approach to the study of ʿamal and taʿlīl as described above and his expansion of their range and of the arguments pertaining to them have certainly contributed to the emergence of the two genres of grammatical writing which deal exclusively with ʿawāmil and ʿilal, at least as far as we know these genres from the extant works

80

Cf. Baalbaki (1995a: 131). Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab I, 271. 82 Ibid., II, 163–169, esp. 166, l. 12 and 167, l. 2. 83 Ibid., III, 59–63. Note that the editor of Muqtaḍab claims that Sībawayhi assigns a ʿilla for this phenomenon whereas Sībawayhi in fact only mentions the similarity between predicative kam and rubba, as Mubarrad does, but does not suggest a ʿilla for the difference between the two types of kam (Kitāb II, 156, 161). 84 Ibid., IV, 204–205. 85 Kitāb III, 518–519; Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 19. 86 Kitāb III, 272; Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 374 and Kāmil II, 68–71; cf. Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Uṣūl II, 132–133. 87 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 136. 88 Ibn Wallād, Intiṣār 163: ʿilla qāṭiʿa ʿalā aṣl muttafaq ʿalayhi tašhad fiṭrat al-lisān bi-ṣiḥ ḥ atihi; cf. Kitāb III, 518–519; Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 19–22. 81

248

chapter four

of authors after Mubarrad.89 In this respect, he represents a transitory stage between Sībawayhi’s views and those of later grammarians. The same can be said in relation to the concept of uṣūl which Mubarrad and others seem to have developed based on Sībawayhi’s wide-ranging application of the term aṣl, and which developed with Mubarrad’s student, Ibn al-Sarrāğ (d. 316/929), into an essential criterion for the arrangement of grammatical data. As previously mentioned, the five main senses of the term aṣl as used by Sībawayhi are adopted by Mubarrad.90 But the term acquires with Mubarrad, particularly in the plural form, uṣūl, another sense which is not found in the Kitāb. This refers to the fundamental or main themes which a certain topic or bāb involves, as opposed to its subsidiary and less significant questions or problems, hence masāʾil. Mubarrad’s teacher, Māzinī (d. 249/863), had earlier used the distinction between uṣūl and masāʾil in the arrangement of his Taṣrīf which is devoted to morphology. Under the former, he lists the general principles that dominate the bāb, and, under the latter, further particulars and examples that are generally characterized by complexity and often formulated as pedagogically-oriented exercises. In his Muqtaḍab, Mubarrad generalizes the distinction between uṣūl and masāʾil to the realm of syntax and maintains that to know the uṣūl is to achieve perfection and mastery of the bāb, the particular masāʾil embraced within that bāb being then judged by reference to those general uṣūl ( fa-inna maʿrifat al-uṣūl iḥ kām al-bāb wa-id̠ā ṣaḥ ḥ at ğarat ʿalayhi l-masāʾil ʿalā l-istiqāma).91 This is why he insists that masāʾil can only be useful after the uṣūl have been exhausted (id̠ kānat lā taṣiḥ ḥ illā baʿda l-farāġ min al-uṣūl).92 Neither masāʾil nor its synonym furūʿ 93 are used by Sībawayhi in the sense used by Mubarrad.94 Furthermore,

89 The titles of some works from the period before Mubarrad suggest that they deal exclusively with ʿawāmil or ʿilal. But even if these works are genuine, they are lost to us, so we do not know what their contents are. To Ḫ alīl (d. 175/791) Ibn Ḫ illikān attributes a book on ʿawāmil (kitāb fī l-ʿawāmil) (Wafayāt II, 246), but Qiftị̄ (Inbāh I, 381) says that this is erroneously attributed to him. In the case of ʿilal, an example is K. al-ʿIlal fī l-naḥw attributed by Ibn al-Nadīm (Fihrist 58) to Quṭrub (d. 206/821). 90 Cf. above, 100–102. 91 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab IV, 172; cf. Baalbaki (1988: 172). 92 Ibid., IV, 190. 93 Ibid., III, 201 and Mubarrad, Mud̠akkar 105. 94 Note that in the Kitāb, the plural form masāʾil does not occur, whereas furūʿ occurs once but not in the same technical sense of the term as used by Mubarrad; cf. Kitāb IV, 432.

comparison with subsequent authors

249

Mubarrad’s frequent classification of his material (particularly in syntax) into uṣūl and masāʾil or furūʿ is a precursor of Ibn al-Sarrāğ’s rigorous and systematic application of the distinction between the two types in the arrangement of his al-Uṣūl fī l-naḥw. Ibn al-Sarrāğ explicitly states this principle of organization in several passages of his book 95 and even expresses the desire, if he were to live long enough, to write a treatise under the title Kitāb al-Furūʿ in which he would assemble the subsidiary questions which are secondary to uṣūl.96 The systematic organization of Ibn al-Sarrāğ’s book is probably the main reason for the famous saying that he, by his uṣūl (or perhaps Uṣūl, i.e. the book itself), has rationalized a previously “insane” grammar (mā zāla l-naḥw mağnūnan ḥ attā ʿaqqalahu Ibn al-Sarrāğ bi-uṣūlihi).97 From a developmental point of view, Sībawayhi’s continuous reference to aṣl as a concept which tallies with qiyās and with the norm resulted in a large body of views which were identified later as the essential issues of any grammatical bāb, hence uṣūl. Consequently, subsidiary points which include the practical and pedagogical application of these uṣūl were reserved for the masāʾil or furūʿ. It is interesting to note that Ibn al-Anbārī (d. 577/1181) says that Ibn al-Sarrāğ collected in his book the uṣūl of linguistic science (uṣūl ʿilm al-ʿArabiyya) and arranged the masāʾil of Sībawayhi extremely well.98 Although masāʾil is anachronistically used by Ibn al-Anbārī, his statement provides a clear link between Sībawayhi and Ibn al-Sarrāğ when it comes to uṣūl. Needless to say, the link would not have been possible without the development which Mubarrad’s approach (and to a lesser extent that of Māzinī’s in morphology) represents in comparison with that of Sībawayhi’s.

95 Cf. Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Uṣūl I, 36, 328, 378, 381. Bohas et al. (1990: 10–11) note that Uṣūl is based on the principles of “exhaustive division” (taqāsīm) and that the treatment of every possible case occurs in a predictable place due to the careful system of divisions, subdivisions and sub-subdivisions which make “the hierarchical relations between grammatical categories and classes of facts immediately visible”. 96 Ibid., I, 328. 97 Yāqūt, Muʿğam VI, 2535; Suyūṭī, Buġya I, 109; cf. Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist 68 where Ibn al-Sarrāğ is said to have been preoccupied with logic. 98 Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 186.

250

chapter four 3. The Degeneration of Sībawayhi’s Approach and the Predominance of Formal Considerations

In the context of distinguishing between malaka (natural linguistic ability) and ṣināʿa (craft), Ibn Ḫ aldūn (d. 808/1406) makes a perceptive comparison between Sībawayhi and the later grammarians (mutaʾaḫḫirūn).99 He says that the students who are most likely to enhance their malaka of Arabic are those who study the Kitāb because its author did not confine it to the formal rules (qawānīn) related to iʿrāb, but filled it with proverbs and citations from poetry and prose. He also accuses those who study the Kitāb but still end up mastering a ṣināʿa rather than a malaka of being unaware of the distinction between these two skills. Contrastively, those who study the books of the later grammarians are unlikely to enhance their malaka, and they thus end up acquiring a ṣināʿa because these books are void of poetry and of the speech of the Arabs and contain nothing but grammatical rules (qawānīn naḥwiyya). The later authors, according to him, have given up the study of the Arabic šawāhid, constructions and modes of speech (li-ʿudūlihim ʿan al-baḥt ̠ fī šawāhid al-lisān wa-tarākībihi wa-tamyīz asālībihi) and have caused the study of language to be part of the rules of logic and argumentation ( fa-aṣbaḥ at ṣināʿat al-ʿArabiyya kaʾannahā min ğumlat qawānīn al-manṭiq al-ʿaqliyya aw al-ğadal). One can hardly find better words to describe the difference between the Kitāb and most later authors. To be sure, the shift in approach that took place after Sībawayhi was gradual, and in very broad terms, authors like Mubarrad (d. 285/898), Ibn al-Sarrāğ (d. 316/929), and Zağğāğī (d. 337/949) in many ways represent a middle stage between him and later authors. By the time of Ibn Ḫ aldūn, that is the ninth/fifteenth century, there had been a remarkable degeneration of Sībawayhi’s methods of syntactico-semantic analysis, and his interest in probing the relationship between form and meaning had been overshadowed by the formal considerations which make up the bulk of what Ibn Ḫ aldūn calls al-qawānīn al-naḥ wiyya. Much as the later grammarians have adopted the vast majority of Sībawayhi’s terms, tools of analysis, norms of usage, arguments pertaining to ʿilla and ʿamal, etc., they have largely substituted his vivid and engaging analysis of speech based on actual usage (cf. Ibn Ḫ aldūn’s reference to proverbs, šawāhid, etc.) by their

99

Ibn Ḫ aldūn, Muqaddima 1081–1084; cf. Zakariyyā (1986: 23 ff.).

comparison with subsequent authors

251

uninspiring attempts to codify and systematize rules (cf. Ibn Ḫ aldūn’s reference to al-qawānīn al-naḥwiyya, qawānīn al-manṭiq al-ʿaqliyya, etc.). Although Sībawayhi’s preferences are usually based on his study of the attested data which he calls kalām al-ʿArab, the Kitāb, of course, has a prescriptive dimension since these preferences are used to differentiate between what is permissible and what is not, and to describe forms and utterances as ğayyid, ḥ asan, qabīḥ , radīʾ, etc. But as Carter notes, “this is worlds apart from the later, prescriptive grammarians . . . who now draw their authority from the body of linguistic ‘rules’ that were the product of Sībawayhi’s efforts and, for them, supplanted the live data he based them on”.100 In his evaluation of grammatical works, Ibn Ḫ aldūn certainly captures the main difference between Sībawayhi and most later grammarians: whereas Sībawayhi made his Kitāb replete with proverbs and citations from both poetry and prose, they gave up any attempt to grasp the structures of the speech of the Arabs (qaṭaʿū l-naẓar ʿan al-tafaqquh fī tarākīb kalām al-ʿArab), and it is as if they do not even bother to examine their speech (ka-annahum lā yanẓurūna fī kalām al-ʿArab). Unavoidably, this approach of most later grammarians distracted them from the semantic aspects of grammatical study, and it is indeed unfortunate that, rather than expand Sībawayhi’s study of maʿnā and its relationship with lafẓ, their effort mostly aimed at the formal aspects of syntactical analysis with little interest in meaning. A few grammarians, however, resisted this trend and tried to restore to meaning a primary role in a variety of ways, as we shall see later. The above-mentioned difference in approach between Sībawayhi and the later grammarians is apparent in almost every issue of syntax which they examine. Morphology, on the other hand, was much less susceptible to differences of approach, and the same set of rules used by Sībawayhi and Māzinī (d. 249/863) was applied by the later grammarians to yield very similar results. It is mainly in sentential analysis and the interpretation of the relations among the constituents of structure that the later grammarians differ from Sībawayhi. From a broader perspective, they largely abandon both his approach to speech as social interaction between the speaker and the listener within a specific context and his attempt to identify the mental operations performed by the speaker in order to interpret utterances. Since a detailed comparison between Sībawayhi and the later authors in their study of syntax is certainly

100

Carter (2004: 65).

252

chapter four

beyond our present scope, we shall restrict our examples to three issues related to notions which have already been discussed in Chapters Two and Three to demonstrate how the approach of these authors is to a great extent dictated by the formal aspects which were foremost on their minds: 1. Within the context of Sībawayhi’s examining of the speaker’s competence in communicating the intended meaning to the listener, he introduces the notion of tawahhum. As we concluded earlier,101 this notion has three related senses, all of which reveal the mental operations which the speaker performs in his analysis of forms, restoration of unuttered parts, and analogical extension. It was also noted that the term tawahhum took a mainly negative connotation in the philological tradition as it was wrongly assumed to indicate an illusion or a false impression on the part of the speaker. Consequently, it became synonymous with ḫ aṭaʾ and laḥ n in some sources. One of Sībawayhi’s šawāhid is interesting from the perspective of comparison with later authors. This is Zuhayr b. Abī Sulmā’s line badā liya annī lastu mudrika mā maḍā * wa-lā sābiqin šayʾan id̠ā kāna ğāʾiyā (“I came to realize that with what happened I cannot catch up, nor can I outrace anything if it is [destined] to happen”) which he quotes seven times in the Kitāb.102 The riwāya of the line in its first citation is sābiqan, which agrees in case with mudrika and hence constitutes no šāhid. In the sixth other citations, however, the riwāya is sābiqin and Sībawayhi explains it on the grounds that mudrika is systematically equivalent to bi-mudriki since the bāʾ is frequently prefixed to the predicate of laysa and does not change the meaning of the construction. Although Sībawayhi does not use the term tawahhum in discussing Zuhayr’s line, it is clearly implied since he compares the use of sābiqin after mudrika with the use of the jussive after ḥ asbuka, nahyuka, šarʿuka, etc.—as in ḥ asbuka yanami l-nāsu (“Sufficient for you that the people sleep”)103—which is said to be the result of tawahhum. Furthermore, the line is compared with the Qurʾānic verse fa-aṣsạ ddaqa wa-akun min al-ṣāliḥ īna (“I should have then given in charity, and I should have been one of the doers

101 102 103

Cf. above, 199–201. Kitāb I, 165, 306; II, 155; III, 29, 51, 100; IV, 160. Ibid., III, 100.

comparison with subsequent authors

253

of good”; Q 63: 10), which is explained by tawahhum.104 Irrespective of Sībawayhi’s position regarding the similarity of this line to the constructions he describes as ġalaṭ,105 his proposing bi-mudriki in the position of mudrika in order to explain the genitive in sābiqin is a clear attempt at tracing the analytical process which the speaker performs. Based on his linguistic competence, the speaker realizes that mudrika may have well been replaced by bi-mudriki, and consequently his attention shifts from the accusative to the genitive, hence the use of the genitive in sābiqin. This manner of probe into the speaker’s mind is what one misses in most later works, and even when Sībawayhi’s position is adopted, his own words and arguments are quoted, but usually without introducing any new insight into the issue at hand. As far as Zuhayr’s line is concerned, some grammarians oppose Sībawayhi’s interpretation on the grounds that it violates established grammatical rules. According to Baġdādī (d. 1093/1682), Mubarrad dismisses the riwāya which has sābiqin because prepositions cannot govern when they are elided.106 This is exactly what Baġdādī also attributes to Mubarrad with respect to the line mašāʾīmu laysū muṣliḥ īna ʿašīratan * wa-lā nāʿibin illā bi-baynin ġurābuhā, which Sībawayhi quotes with Zuhayr’s line on three occasions.107 For his part, Ibn Hišām (d. 761/1360) seems to have perfectly understood what Sībawayhi means by tawahhum. Accordingly, he criticizes Ibn Mālik (d. 672/1274) for misunderstanding what Sībawayhi means by ġalaṭ in relation with Zuhayr’s line.108 He explains that ġalaṭ in this context is a synonym of tawahhum and does not at all mean ḫ aṭaʾ or wrong usage. He also asserts that the line is 104

Ibid., III, 100–101. Cf. Baalbaki (1982: 236–239) where this apparent similarity is shown not to contradict Sībawayhi’s acceptance of the usage which Zuhayr’s line exemplifies. 106 Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna IX, 104. 107 Kitāb I, 165, 306; III, 29; Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna IV, 159. For the translation of this line, see above, 79. Note that Mubarrad quotes twice the following line by Zuhayr in which the genitive is conjoined to the accusative (Kāmil I, 389; III, 159): wa-laysa māniʿa d̠ī qurbā wa-d̠ī nasabin * yawman wa-lā muʿdimin min ḫābiṭin waraqā (“He never deprives a relative or a kinsman, nor does he ever withhold leaves from he who seeks to beat them off” [i.e. does not deny a petitioner his bounty]). It is doubtful, however, whether Mubarrad accepts this line as an instance of tawahhum, not only because reference to this possibility occurs as a variant in one manuscript and may have been added at a later stage, but also because one of the two citations of the line has muʿdiman in the accusative. 108 Ibn Hišām, Muġnī II, 478; cf. Kitāb II, 155. 105

254

chapter four

acceptable to Sībawayhi as its mere mention in the Kitāb indicates.109 Several other grammarians (ğamāʿa min al-naḥwiyyīn), according to Ušmūnī (d. 900/1495), reject Sībawayhi’s view that tawahhum is the reason for sābiqin to be in the genitive.110 This is obviously a rejection of the very concept of tawahhum to which Sībawayhi resorts in interpreting several constructions that are similar to Zuhayr’s line. The “unorthodox” conjoining of the genitive (e.g. sābiqin and nāʿibin) to a preceding accusative (e.g. mudrika and muṣliḥ īna) seems to have distracted most later grammarians from grasping the essence of Sībawayhi’s use of tawahhum and hence their failure to take advantage of the full potential of this notion in syntactical analysis. A purely formal consideration (i.e. the sameness of case-ending in the conjoined noun and its antecedent) has thus taken precedence over the potent notion of tawahhum which in Sībawayhi’s usage transcends form and reconstructs the internal thinking of the speaker. 2. We have examined earlier several issues related to Sībawayhi’s discussion of constructions in which fāʾ, wāw and aw are followed by the subjunctive and, in certain cases, the indicative. In the case of constructions with fāʾ in particular, we have examined the theoretical bases for the attribution of the subjunctive to an elided an, the relationship between the case-ending of the verb after fāʾ and its intended meaning, and the manner in which Sībawayhi arranges the various types of fāʾ constructions and demonstrates the correspondence of his amt̠ila to attested šawāhid.111 The structure of bāb al-fāʾ in the Kitāb reflects Sībawayhi’s ingenious plan which proceeds from the theoretical bases of the taqdīr of an, as well as the types of meaning the model sentence expresses, to the various changes which can be introduced to that sentence and the effect these changes have on meaning and form. Irrespective of the pedagogical implications caused by Sībawayhi’s introduction of an (on which more will follow in Section 4), the whole bāb of fāʾ is characterized by the lively and engaging discussion in which Sībawayhi enthusiastically defends the premises on which his analysis of the fāʾ constructions rests, as indeed is the case in other constructions 109 Cf. Baġdādī’s assertion that Sībawayhi accepts the line, in spite of its farfetchedness (buʿd ), because it is attested through samāʿ (Ḫ izāna IV, 159). 110 Ušmūnī, Šarḥ II, 302. 111 Cf. above, 77–80, 138–140, 189–190, 210–215.

comparison with subsequent authors

255

in several other bābs. Unfortunately, none of the authentic sources of the period discusses the fāʾ constructions at any length, although the philologically-oriented Qurʾānic commentaries do include a few comments on them. For example, Farrāʾ (d. 207/822) refers to the subjunctive after fāʾ as the ğawāb (correlative) of nafy (negation), istifhām (interrogation), tamannī (wish), etc. and mentions the possibility of using the indicative in the verb which follows fāʾ.112 For his part, al-Aḫfaš al-Awsat ̣ (d. 215/830) mentions ğawāb al-fāʾ, the restoration of the elided an in order to conjoin two nouns, and the indicative after fāʾ.113 Since the commentaries of Farrāʾ and Aḫfaš are not grammatical texts in the strict sense of the word, they do not include, as the Kitāb does, a separate bāb on fāʾ, yet the abovementioned scattered comments are generally in line with Sībawayhi’s analysis. Whether this is due to the influence of the Kitāb or not is more difficult to determine, but it seems that for a whole century— that is, until Mubarrad’s time—Sībawayhi’s bāb al-fāʾ, as far as we know, remained the only systematic attempt to exhaust the various issues related to the analysis of constructions in which an may be restored to explain the subjunctive after fāʾ. The earliest authors after Sībawayhi to devote a full bāb for fāʾ constructions are Mubarrad (d. 285/898)114 and Ibn al-Sarrāğ (d. 316/929).115 From the formal point of view, both bābs begin with a brief introduction of the main issues of the subject and defer to a separate section the masāʾil under which are amassed various problems related to the constructions under discussion. This formal characteristic, however, symbolizes the breaking up of the unity which distinguishes Sībawayhi’s bāb al-fāʾ and the abandonment of his approach in which citations, arguments and interpretations are gradually introduced to convince the reader of the soundness of the grammatical analysis. Undoubtedly, Mubarrad heavily relies in his discussion on Sībawayhi’s text, whereas Ibn al-Sarrāğ either draws his material directly from the Kitāb (as is

112 For the relevant quotations from Farrāʾ’s Maʿānī regarding the use of ğawāb, see Kinberg (1996: 137–145). 113 Aḫfaš, Maʿānī I, 58–59. 114 Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab II, 14–24. 115 Note that Ibn al-Sarrāğ’s discussion of fāʾ constructions technically belongs to two bābs (Uṣūl II, 153–154, 179–186) since he discusses several particles in the first chapter and then presents the masāʾil in the second.

256

chapter four

manifest in his direct quotations from it)116 or draws from the text of his teacher, Mubarrad, by using almost his exact words.117 In an earlier study,118 several observations were made concerning the difference between Sībawayhi’s text and those of Mubarrad and Ibn al-Sarrāğ’s. For example, the first section of bāb al-fāʾ in Muqtaḍab consists essentially of two elements: the meanings associated with the subjunctive and the indicative, and three constructions all of which are not in the affirmative ( ġayr wāğib). Like Sībawayhi, Mubarrad identifies four meanings of the model sentence mā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī, but defers one of them to the section on masāʾil. Furthermore, he mentions in that first section no more than three constructions other than the model sentence: one with amr (command; iʾtinī fa-ukrimaka “Come to me so that I honor you”!), another with nafy (prohibition; lā taʾtinī fa-ukrimaka “Do not come to me so that I honor you”!), and a third with istifhām (interrogation; a-taʾtīnī fa-uʿṭiyaka “Would you come to me so that I give you”?). These are also the only three examples which Ibn al-Sarrāğ cites in his “abstract” and in precisely the same words. Unlike the other constructions which Mubarrad and Ibn al-Sarrāğ cite under masāʾil, the three constructions—which correspond to nos. 13, 12, and 11 respectively in our listing of Sībawayhi’s examples119— obviously represent for them the basic or vital types which characterize the whole bāb. These three constructions do not have any special status for Sībawayhi but are part of a multitude of constructions which progressively contribute to proving the correctness of the theoretical bases and groups of meaning which he proposes in the beginning of his bāb. His two successors, however, are more interested in condensing the material in the first part of their discussion, and only after that do they deal with the masāʾil. This naturally gives the impression that the constructions cited under masāʾil are of lesser value or importance—and perhaps intended as ancillary material for training students—and surely shatters the unity and coherence which the structure of Sībawayhi’s text vividly reflects. Under masāʾil, Mubarrad cites three other constructions with fāʾ. These are: mā anta bi-ṣāḥ ibī fa-ukrimaka (“You are not my friend so that I honor you”), kaʾannaka lam taʾtinā fa-tuḥ addit̠anā (“As if you have not visited us so that you converse with us”), and 116 117 118 119

Cf. Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Uṣūl II, 180–181. Ibid., II, 153–154. Baalbaki (2001: 205–206). Cf. above, 212.

comparison with subsequent authors

257

ayna baytuka fa-azūraka (“Where is your house so that I visit you”?), and they correspond to nos. 7, 15 and 8 respectively in Sībawayhi’s text. Thus, from the seventeen constructions which form the core of Sībawayhi’s bāb, eight neither feature in Mubarrad’s “abstract” nor his masāʾil. These correspond to nos. 3–6, 9, 14, 16 and 17 in the Kitāb. Moreover, Sībawayhi’s tenth and eleventh examples are represented by only one, more general example by Mubarrad.120 Ibn al-Sarrāğ follows in the footsteps of his teacher, Mubarrad, not only in reducing Sībawayhi’s arguments and interpretations into a short abstract, but also in drastically cutting down on his illustrations. In a more general context, it is interesting to note that the relationship between Sībawayhi and subsequent grammarians, like Mubarrad and Ibn al-Sarrāğ, is similar to that between Ḫ alīl b. Aḥmad (d. 175/791) and later lexicographers, such as the author of Ğamharat al-luġa, Ibn Durayd (d. 321/933), for whom the discovery stage was over with Ḫ alīl’s establishment of a system according to which all lexical roots, whether used or not, may be identified and arranged. Within that system, issues such as the type of alphabetical order, the internal arrangement of the entries, and even the šawāhid were still subject to modification by the later lexicographers.121 Just like Ḫ alīl in the realm of lexicography, Sībawayhi (aided by Ḫ alīl himself) relieved later authors from the burden of proposing a full-fledged grammatical system of analysis; hence they focused on matters such as presentation and organization, expansion of certain issues, scrutiny of the šawāhid, etc. As an author, Sībawayhi continuously strove to convince his reader not only of the immediate arguments and interpretations he offered but also of their relevance to the overall grammatical system of analysis which he propagated. This dimension is conspicuously missing from the works of the later authors, and it is therefore not surprising to see how different their discussion of certain issues—such as bāb al-fāʾ—is from Sībawayhi’s in spite of the fact that he is the source of most of their terms, arguments and šawāhid. Further changes were introduced to the structure of bāb al-fāʾ in the sources after the time of Mubarrad and Ibn al-Sarrāğ. Generally speaking, these changes reflect the primary interest of most of these later authors in formalizing grammatical rules and presenting them 120 This is Mubarrad’s example on istifhām (Muqtaḍab II, 15) which corresponds to two varieties of istifhām mentioned by Sībawayhi and quoted in nos. 10 and 11 in our listing of his examples (cf. above, 212). 121 Cf. Baalbaki (1998: 46, 50–51).

258

chapter four

in concise, pedantic formulae. Accordingly, the two groups of meaning which Sībawayhi identifies in the early parts of his bāb as being associated with the subjunctive and the indicative are now relegated to a secondary role and are no more explored in the illustrative constructions. A standard chapter, or part thereof, which deals with the fāʾ in later sources normally starts with the enumeration of the kinds of requisition (ṭalab) expressed by constructions in which the verb after the fāʾ is in the subjunctive. Ranging from six to nine in number—but identified as seven by Ibn Ğinnī122—these types are amr (command), nahy (prohibition), istifhām (interrogation), nafy or ğaḥ d (negation), tamannī (wish), tarağğī (hope), ʿarḍ (request), taḥ ḍīḍ (urging), and duʿāʾ (invocation). A standard expression in many sources is al-fāʾ allatī takūn ğawāban li- (“the fāʾ which is correlative of . . .”), followed by the types of ṭalab and an example of each.123 Some sources have untypically lengthy chapters on the fāʾ constructions, as in Ibn Ğinnī’s (d. 392/1002) Sirr, Ibn Yaʿīš’s (d. 643/1245) Šarḥ , and Astarābād̠ī’s (d. after 686/1287) Šarḥ al-Kāfiya,124 and these also begin with the types of ṭalab which such constructions involve and obviously draw on Sībawayhi’s šawāhid or quote his views.125 These sources also include in their discussion a number of points which do not occur in earlier works. For example, Ibn Ğinnī distinguishes between the construction in which the verb after the fāʾ is in the subjunctive and that in which the verb is in the indicative, on the grounds that the first type stands for one sentence whereas the second stands for two sentences.126 He also mentions the argument of the Baghdadis (ascribed to the Kufans by Ibn Yaʿīš) that the verb after fāʾ is in the subjunctive due to ṣarf (asymmetric coordination).127 For his part, Astarābād̠ī introduces three new ideas:128 (1) the comparison between fāʾ constructions and conditional sentences from the viewpoint

122 Cf. his expressions tilka l-amākin al-sabʿa (Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 263) and hād̠ihi l-sabʿat al-ašyāʾ (Sirr I, 274). 123 Cf. Zağğāğī (d. 340/951), Ğumal 196–197; Ibn Ğinnī (d. 392/1002), Lumaʿ 187–188; Ibn Mālik (d. 672/1273), ʿUmda 337–342; Ṣanʿānī (d. 680/1282), Tahd̠īb 250–252; Ibn Hišām (d. 761/1359), Šarḥ 302–307; Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), Hamʿ II, 10–13. 124 Ibn Ğinnī, Sirr 272–276; Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VII, 26–28, 36–38; Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Kāfiya II, 244–249. 125 Cf. Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VII, 28, 35, 36; Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Kāfiya II, 244–245, 248. 126 Ibn Ğinnī (Sirr I, 274) argues that what is before fāʾ and what is after it represent one sentence; cf. the expression yanʿaqidāni nʿiqād al-ğumla l-wāḥ ida (where inʿiqād corresponds to Sībawayhi’s term tamt̠īl). 127 Ibid., I, 275; Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VII, 27. 128 Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Kāfiya II, 246–248.

comparison with subsequent authors

259

of the strength of the relationship between what precedes the fāʾ and what follows it; (2) the identification of four possibilities of negation in the case of constructions in which the verb is in the indicative; and (3) the impermissibility of having a correlative for the correlative of the fāʾ (lā ğawāb li-l-ğawāb bi-l-fāʾ). Such subsidiary points (most of which are quite complicated and distinctly speculative) are typical of the additions of the later grammarians to the contents of the earlier sources. The bulk of these additions is usually amassed by much later authors, such as Ušmūnī (d. circa 900/1495) and Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), and bāb al-fāʾ is no exception.129 3. Sībawayhi establishes a tripartite hierarchy according to which he explains several morphological and syntactical characteristics of kāna, laysa and mā. One of the elements in this hierarchy has to do with word order. As we noted earlier,130 laysa is judged to be stronger than mā because laysa can retain its regimen when its predicate precedes its subject, as in laysa munṭaliqan ʿAbdullāhi, whereas Ḥ iğāzī mā (whose predicate is normally in the accusative) cannot. Thus, one would say mā munṭaliqun ʿAbdullāhi, but not * mā munṭaliqan ʿAbdullāhi, since mā is said not to be strong enough (lam taqwa) to retain its regimen of the preposed predicate. As far as the sisters of kāna are concerned (note that mā is traditionally classified with laysa and not with kāna directly), Sībawayhi mentions ṣāra, mā dāma, laysa, aṣbaḥ a, amsā, etc.131 He also makes, in various parts of the Kitāb, the following comments on matters related to the word order of the constructions in which kāna and its sisters are used: a. The predicate of kāna may precede its noun and hence both constructions kāna ʿAbdullāhi aḫ āka and kāna aḫ āka ʿAbdullāhi are permissible. According to Sībawayhi, the difference between the two constructions is a function of the intention of the speaker and the expectation of the listener. The first construction is explained from the perspective of the speaker, who intends to inform his listener about “brotherhood” (fa-innamā aradta an tuḫ bir ʿan al-uḫuwwa), as well as from the perspective of the listener who, if addressed by kāna Zaydun, should expect a predicate (e.g.

129 130 131

Ušmūnī, Šarḥ III, 562–566; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ II, 10–13. Cf. above, 131. Kitāb I, 45–46.

260

chapter four

ḥ alīman).132 The second construction is explained merely from the perspective of the listener since he should expect the speaker, who starts the utterance by kāna ḥ alīman, to specify the person who is so described (e.g. Zaydun; fa-innamā yantaẓir an tuʿarrifahu ṣāḥ ib al-ṣifa).133 b. Kāna may be separated from its subject by a preposition and its genitive, as in kāna bihā Zaydun muṣāban and kāna fīhā Zaydun muṣāban.134 Sībawayhi explains that what separates the operant from its operand in such constructions may or may not itself be an utterance that can stand on its own (yaḥ sun ʿalayhi l-sukūt). Accordingly, his analysis of these constructions has a distinct semantic component as far as the elements which separate kāna from its subject are concerned. c. The predicate of laysa may precede its subject. Sībawayhi cites the unascribed line a-laysa akrama ḫ alqi l-Lāhi qad ʿalimū * ʿinda l-ḥ ifāẓi Banū ʿAmri bni Ḥ unğūdi (“Didn’t people know that the Banū ʿAmr b. Ḥ unğūd are, when it is defense time, the noblest of God’s creatures”?), in which akrama, predicate of laysa, is preposed.135 In spite of the apparent complexity of the construction (and the use of ʿalimū impersonally), its basic structure becomes quite simple when one compares it, as Sībawayhi does, with the construction ḍaraba qawmaka banū fulānin which begins with a verb followed by its object and subject respectively. d. A pronoun after laysa is assumed in constructions where laysa is separated from its predicate by an element governed by that predicate. Sībawayhi’s example is Ḥ umayd al-Arqaṭ’s line fa-aṣbaḥ ū wa-l-nawā ʿālī muʿarrasihim * wa-laysa kulla l-nawā tulqī l-masākīnu (“They woke up to a heap of date pits towering over the place they slept in; [notwithstanding that] not all the pits do the poor discard”), where the pronoun of case or fact (called ḍamīr al-šaʾn by later authors) is assumed since kulla is in the accusative, and there are no formal or semantic reasons for it to be the subject of laysa.136 Sībawayhi cites similar attested constructions in prose, such as laysa ḫ alaqa l-Lāhu mit̠lahu (“God did

132 133 134 135 136

Ibid., I, 47. Ibid., I, 47–48. Ibid., II, 281. Ibid., II, 37; Šantamarī, Taḥ sị̄ l 252. Kitāb I, 70, 147; Naḥ ḥās, Šarḥ 85; Sīrāfī, Abyāt I, 175–176; Šantamarī, Taḥ sị̄ l 95.

comparison with subsequent authors

261

not create the likes of him”), whose permissibility hinges on the assumption of a pronoun after laysa since laysa may not directly precede a verb. Two observations may be made on the basis of the above examples: that Sībawayhi tries to establish a link between the form of the construction (as defined here by its word order) and its meaning, and that the examples he cites are either actual šawāhid, constructions that are formed on the analogy of these šawāhid, or constructions—like kāna ʿAbdullāhi aḫ āka and kāna aḫ āka ʿAbdullāhi—which occur in speech too frequently to require to be supported by an actual šāhid. The later grammarians’ discussions of constructions with kāna or any of its sisters, unlike those of Sībawayhi’s, are characterized by a general neglect of meaning and by the large number of examples which they seem to have formulated on the basis of their own grammatical qiyās rather than on the analogy of attested usage. Consequently, the permissibility or impermissibility of the constructions which they examine is almost solely a function of formal considerations related to both the perceived quwwa (strength) of each operant and the justification of the various case-endings in the construction, and is hardly ever a function of the meaning which results from the specific word order being considered. Among the host of examples which later authors—such as Ibn Yaʿīš (d. 643/1245), Suyūtị̄ (d. 911/1505), and the various commentators of the Alfiyya—propose in their discussion of hysteron-proteron in constructions with kāna or its sisters, the construction qāʾiman laysa Zaydun is perhaps unique in having been defended (on the authority of the Kufans) not only on the grounds of naṣṣ (textual attestation) but also maʿnā (meaning).137 But even in this example, it is the meaning of laysa as a verb that is discussed and not the meaning of the construction as a whole. In fact, the semantic component is almost totally absent from the controversies among the later grammarians concerning the permissibility or otherwise of these constructions. Furthermore, had the examples which they cite been formulated on the analogy of attested material, they would not have differed so bitterly on their permissibility. In other words, the grammarians’ disputes which focus on allowing or disallowing these constructions are the strongest proof that they do not represent actual usage. Following are a few examples:

137

Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VII, 114.

262

chapter four

a. The construction qāʾiman mā zāla Zaydun is allowed by the Kufans other than Farrāʾ (d. 207/822), and by Ibn Kaysān (d. 320/932) and Abū Ğaʿfar al-Naḥ ḥās (d. 338/950), but not by the Basrans.138 b. The constructions qāʾiman lam yazal Zaydun, qāʾiman lan yazāla Zaydun and qāʾiman lā yazālu Zaydun are allowed by most Basrans and Kufans. None of them, however, is allowed by Farrāʾ, whereas Duraywid (d. 325/937) does not allow the second and third constructions.139 c. The construction mā qāʾiman zāla Zaydun, according to Suyūṭī, is allowed by most grammarians, but some reject it on the grounds that mā and zāla are inseparable like ḥ abba and d̠ā in ḥ abbad̠ā.140 Contrarily, Astarābād̠ ī claims that no grammarian allows this construction.141 d. The construction mā dāma qāʾiman Zaydun is reported to be allowed by all grammarians except Ibn Muʿṭī (d. 628/1231).142 e. The construction mā qāʾiman dāma Zaydun is not allowed by Ibn al-Nāẓim (d. 686/1287) on the basis of the impermissibility of the separation between mā and its complement (ṣila).143 Alternatively, Abū Ḥ ayyān (d. 745/1344) resorts to qiyās in order to defend this construction since mā is a non-operative infinitival particle (ḥ arf maṣdarī ġayr ʿāmil) which is equivalent to a verbal noun.144 Other controversial constructions are also cited, including those in which the predicate of kāna or any of its sisters is a nominal sentence, as in kāna Zaydun abūhu qāʾimun.145 What all these constructions have in common is that later authors almost exclusively rely in accepting or rejecting them on qiyās and not on samāʿ or attested usage. There even are instances in which constructions are accepted on the basis of qiyās although samāʿ is confirmed to be non-existent. For example, Ibn al-Sarrāğ (d. 316/929) and Ibn Mālik (d. 672/1274) reportedly accept 138 Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 139; Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VII, 113; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 127; Ušmūnī, Šarḥ I, 113; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 117. 139 Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Kāfiya II, 297; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 117. 140 Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 117. 141 Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Kāfiya II, 297. 142 Ibid., II, 297; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 126. 143 Ibn al-Nāẓim, Šarḥ 134; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 127. 144 Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 117. 145 Ibid., I, 118. For the two constructions laysa qāʾiman Zaydun and qāʾiman laysa Zaydun, see above, 132. For further examples and discussion, see Baalbaki (2004: 41–58; forthcoming d).

comparison with subsequent authors

263

the two constructions kāna abūhu qāʾiman Zaydun and abūhu qāʾiman kāna Zaydun in spite of their admission that they are not attested in actual speech (. . . annahu l-qiyās wa-in lam yusmaʿ ).146 Even more complex constructions are cited and usually disputed in the sources. A number of such constructions typically consist of kāna with its subject and predicate as well as the operand of the predicate, as in kāna Zaydun ākilan ṭaʿāmaka. Suyūt ̣ī (911/1505) reports that Zağğāğī (d. 337/949), in his Amālī and on the authority of Ibn Šuqayr (d. 317/ 929), considers various constructions which are produced by changing the word order of this model construction and specifies whether they are accepted or not by the Basrans, the Kufans and certain individuallynamed grammarians.147 The number of possible variations, according to Suyūṭī, is twenty-four. It is obvious, however, that the vast majority of them do not feature in speech but are theoretically proposed by the grammarians to determine whether they are acceptable or not, solely on formal grounds without any recourse to meaning. Among the controversial constructions cited by Suyūtị̄ are kāna ṭaʿāmaka ākilan Zaydun (allowed by the Kufans, but not the Basrans except for Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Fārisī [d. 377/987], and Ibn ʿUṣfūr [d. 669/1271]); ṭaʿāmaka ākilan kāna Zaydun (allowed by the Basrans and Kisāʾī [d. 189/805], but not by Farrāʾ [d. 207/822]); kāna ṭaʿāmaka Zaydun ākilan (allowed by the Kufans but not the Basrans); ākilan kāna Zaydun ṭaʿāmaka (allowed by the Basrans, but not the Kufans except for one of two contradictory views of Kisāʾī’s); Zaydun ṭaʿāmaka ākilan kāna and ṭaʿāmaka ākilan Zaydun kāna (both of which are allowed by the Basrans and Kisāʾī, but not by Farrāʾ); and ṭaʿāmaka Zaydun ākilan kāna (allowed by Basrans, but not the Kufans except for Kisāʾī who is also reported here to have had two opposing views). 4. The Pedagogical Implications We have so far encountered several examples in which Sībawayhi intervenes in constructions, particularly through taqdīr, in order to preserve some of the grammatical axioms of the theory or to justify certain

146

Ibid., I, 118. Zağğāğī’s text is not part of his published Amālī, but is preserved in Suyūṭī’s Ašbāh II, 56–57 and alluded to in Hamʿ II, 118; cf. Ibn al-Nāẓim, Šarḥ 138; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 130; Ušmūnī, Šarḥ I, 116. 147

264

chapter four

syntactical relations among the various parts of the utterance. Examples include the restoration of an after fāʾ in lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī, of rubba after wāw in wa-ğaddāʾa, of a verb such as unādī after the vocative particle, and of yuṣawwitu before the accusative in lahu ṣawtun ṣawta ḥ imārin.148 Rather than disturb the axiom that unspecialized particles (i.e. those that may precede nouns and verbs alike) cannot act as operants, the subjunctive in tuḥ addit̠anī is ascribed to an assumed, but specialized, particle, an, and not to the uttered, but unspecialized, particle, fāʾ. Similarly, the assumption of elided operants in other examples almost invariably stems from the desire to preserve “basic rules” and keep anomalies to an absolute minimum. Moreover, Sībawayhi uses the notion ʿilla to justify linguistic phenomena, and although he does not use the term ḥ ikma as subsequent grammarians do to refer to the presumed rational factors which underlie usage, it is strongly implied in the text, as was previously established.149 It is mostly taqdīr and taʿlīl (but also other concepts such qiyās and aṣl) that have contributed to the speculative dimension of Sībawayhi’s grammatical analysis. Beyond the actual utterance being analyzed, Sībawayhi theorizes about the operants that need to be assumed (hence taqdīr), the reasons behind linguistic phenomena (hence taʿlīl), the relationship between one form, structure, etc. with other forms, structures, etc. (hence qiyās), and the origin from which a certain usage developed (hence aṣl). By upholding these essential concepts which he utilizes in the analysis of an indeterminate number of utterances, both in morphology and syntax, Sībawayhi demonstrates the coherence of his grammatical system and its ability not only to explain usage, but also to justify it and highlight the ḥ ikma that underlies it. Sībawayhi’s keenness on demonstrating the coherence of his overall theory, however, had an adverse effect on the pedagogical attainability of grammar. The attribution of ʿamal to ʿawāmil that do not feature in the actual utterance is probably the foremost reason behind the difficulty which students learning grammar according to the traditional theory have to face—even at this present time, as any teacher of Arabic is likely to confirm. In a matter of no more than a few decades after Sībawayhi, a contemporary of Abū ʿUbayda’s (d. 209/824), Rufayʿ b. Salama (also known as Damād̠), wrote a satirical poem ridiculing the grammarians

148 149

Cf. our discussion of taqdīr (above, 68–83). Cf. above, 67.

comparison with subsequent authors

265

for their interpretation of constructions in which fāʾ or wāw or aw are followed by the subjunctive, as in lastu bi-ātīka aw taʾtiyann (“I shall not come to you unless you come to me”) which Rufayʿ incorporates into his poem.150 He says that, in spite of his vast knowledge of grammar, the introduction of an before fāʾ, wāw and aw almost drove him to lunacy (fa-qad kidtu . . . an uğann) since he could not understand the reason behind it. A later anecdote which also refers to the arbitrary nature of taqdīr claims that the Buwayhī leader ʿAḍud al-Dawla (d. 372/ 983) asked Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī (d. 377/987) about the operant which causes the expected noun (mustat̠nā) to be in the accusative, as in qāma l-qawmu illā Zaydan (“The men rose, except Zayd”). Fārisī explained that the elided verb astat̠nī (“I except”) is the operant which governs the accusative noun Zaydan. Unconvinced of this answer, ʿAḍud al-Dawla shrewdly asked Fārisī why should one instead not assume imtanaʿa (“He refrained”), in which case Zaydun will become nominative (wa-hallā qaddarta mtanaʿa fa-rafaʿta). Fārisī reportedly could not counterargue (fa-nqaṭaʿa l-šayḫ , in Ibn Ḫ illikān’s riwāya), but responded by saying that he had only given an improvised answer (ğawāb maydānī) and promised to look further into the matter.151 It goes without saying that the increasing interest of the later grammarians in the formal aspects of structure was matched by the increase in the level of complexity and arbitrariness of their taqdīr. It is thus not surprising that one of the main issues Ibn Maḍāʾ (d. 592/1196) raises in his harsh attack on the methods of the grammarians is their theory of taqdīr, in particular the supposedly elided elements (maḥ dū ̠ fāt) that never feature in the utterance (such as ḍarabta which they assume before the direct object in their analysis of a construction like a-Zaydan ḍarabtahu) or that contradict the aim of the speaker (such as the assumption of unādī in the vocative which, according to Ibn Maḍāʾ, changes the meaning of the utterance and transforms vocation into a statement).152 Another feature which contributed negatively to the pedagogical attainability of grammar is taʿlīl (causation). Sībawayhi’s interest in this notion is directly linked with the aim of justifying usage based on the reconstruction of the mental processes performed by the speaker, and 150 Sīrāfī, Aḫ bār 77–78; Tanūḫī, Tārīḫ 66–67; Qiftị̄ , Inbāh II, 5–6; cf. Baalbaki (1986: 12). 151 Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 233; Yāqūt, Muʿğam II, 813; Ibn Ḫ illikān, Wafayāt II, 80. 152 Ibn Maḍāʾ, Radd 78–82.

266

chapter four

we have previously highlighted his intuitively based elements of taʿlīl, such as lightening (taḫ fīf ), the length of the utterance (expressed by ṭāla l-kalām), and lack of ambiguity (expressed by derivatives of the roots fṣl and frq and by the absence of iltibās and naqḍ al-maʿnā). The level of taʿlīl, however, increased considerably in later works, and as early as Mubarrad (d. 285/898), a clear tendency in this direction is tangible. Eventually, grammatical ʿilal became the exclusive subject of lengthy works such as Ibn al-Warrāq’s (d. 381/991) ʿIlal al-naḥw and Ibn al-Anbārī’s (d. 577/1181) Asrār al-ʿArabiyya, and the preoccupation of the grammarians with taʿlīl became a distinguishing feature of the tradition as a whole. As considerably later works, such as Suyūtị̄ ’s (d. 911/1505) Hamʿ, show, almost any grammatical phenomenon was subject to taʿlīl, and more often than not, grammarians differed among each other in the proposal of ʿilal. This naturally led to farfetched interpretations which became identified with the general approach of the grammarians and which were at times subject to ridicule. Even a lexicographer like Ibn Fāris (d. 395/1009) satirically alludes to the grammarians’ insupportable arguments by comparing them to the languid look of a Turkish maiden; cf. the lines marrat binā hayfāʾu maqdūdatun * Turkiyyatun tunmā ilā Turkiyyi/tarnū bi-ṭarfin fātirin fātinin * aḍʿafa min ḥ uğğati naḥwiyyi (“A maiden passed by us, slender and [superbly] sculpted—a Turk, descendant of a Turk. She gazes with a languid charming look, weaker than the argument of a grammarian”).153 As in the case of taqdīr, Ibn Maḍāʾ’s position is uncompromising vis-à-vis the ʿilal, apart from primary ones (al-ʿilal al-uwal) through which one knows the methods the Arabs use in their speech (bi-maʿrifatihā taḥ sụ l lanā l-maʿrifa bi-l-nuṭq bi-kalām al-ʿArab).154 He thus calls for the abolishment of secondary and tertiary ʿilal (al-ʿilal al-t̠awānī wa-l-t̠awālit̠) as part of his effort to cancel the speculative elements of the theory, and although he acknowledges that the only use of the secondary ʿilal is to prove that the Arabs are a wise nation (wa-lā tufīdunā illā anna l-ʿArab umma ḥ akīma), this obviously could not compensate for the complex, farfetched and erroneous ʿilal of the grammarians as he sees them. It

153

Ibn Ḫ illikān, Wafayāt I, 119. Ibn Maḍāʾ, Radd 131. Note also that more than a century prior to Ibn Maḍāʾ, Ḫ afāğī (d. 466/1073) had described the grammarians’ method of taʿlīl (ṭarīqat al-taʿlīl) as logically insupportable, except for very few examples, if any (fa-inna l-naẓar id̠ā sulliṭa ʿalā mā yuʿallil al-naḥwiyyūna bihi lam yat̠but maʿahu illā l-fad̠d̠ al-fard bal wa-lā yat̠but šayʾ al-batta; Ḫ afāğī, Sirr 31). 154

comparison with subsequent authors

267

is interesting to note that modern attempts towards Arabic language reform also criticize the heavy reliance of traditional grammar on taqdīr and taʿlīl, and assert that a different presentation which does away with these speculative notions would make grammar much more accessible to students.155 The difficulty students faced in learning grammar and comprehending the methods of the grammarians is further documented in several anecdotes. One student, for example, is said to have spent a long period (mudda ṭawīla) reading Sībawayhi’s Kitāb with Māzinī (d. 249/863) as his tutor. When he reached the end of the text, he gracefully thanked Māzinī but admitted that he understood nothing of what he had read.156 The Kitāb, of course, is neither a simple text nor is it devised to be a manual for students, but the anecdote also refers to the ambiguity (ġumūḍ) characteristic of Māzinī in this case and squarely blames on him the failure of the ill-fated student to learn grammar. This element of ambiguity was certainly aggravated with an author like Rummānī (d. 384/994) who was known for combining logic with grammar.157 The pedagogical consequences of his methods were assessed by some of his own disciples who said that they had studied grammar with three teachers, namely, Rummānī from whom they understood nothing, Fārisī (d. 377/987) only some of what he said they understood, and Sīrāfī (d. 368/979) all of what he said they understood.158 But even before the stage in which grammar was heavily influenced by logic, the grammarians were openly accused, particularly concerning their use of qiyās, of resorting to their own criteria, rather than to an innate or natural disposition (ṭabʿ ) in judging usage. Already by the time of al-Aḫfaš al-Awsaṭ (d. 215/830), a certain ʿAmmār al-Kalbī, a line of whose poetry seems to have been criticized by one grammarian, attacked the grammarians’ method of using the qiyās which they had devised (. . . wamin qiyāsi naḥ wihimū hād̠ā llad̠ī btadaʿū) in order to dismiss usage by native speakers.159 One of the lines of ʿAmmār’s poem in ridicule

Cf. Omran (1991) and ʿAzzāwī (1995). Abū l-Ṭayyib, Marātib 126. 157 Cf. above, n. 74. 158 Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 234; cf. Yāqūt, Muʿğam IV, 1826. 159 Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 239–240; Yāqūt, Muʿğam IV, 1595 (where ʿAmmār is said to have erroneously used mazʿūğ instead of muzʿağ); Qiftị̄ , Inbāh II, 42–43 (where Aʿrābī is used to refer to the native speaker criticizing the grammarians). Cf. also Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 104 for a similar anecdote attributed to an Aʿrābī who attended the circle of Abū Zayd al-Anṣārī (d. 215/830). 155 156

268

chapter four

of the grammarians specifically refers to the vast discrepancy between the artificiality of the grammarians’ speech and the natural eloquence of native speakers (kam bayna qawmin qad iḥtālū li-manṭiqihim * wabayna qawmin ʿalā iʿrābihim ṭubiʿū). A similar, but unattributed line quoted in some sources is wa-lastu bi-naḥ wiyyin yalūku lisānahu * wa-lākin salīqiyyun aqūlu fa-uʿribu (“A grammarian who stammers [chews his words] I am not. I am, rather, natively eloquent—my speech is [naturally] impeccable”).160 Another early criticism of the grammarians, this time for their methods of morphological analysis, is attributed to a contemporary of Muʿād̠ al-Harrāʾ (d. 187/803), Abū Muslim, who likens the incomprehensible jargon of the grammarians to foreign talk (kalām al-Zanğ wa-l-Rūm “the speech of the Negroes and Greeks”).161 The above-quoted anecdotes prove that students’ complaints of the complexity of grammar was part of a wider reaction against the grammarians’ methods which were often contrasted with the intuitiveness of the speaker. As originator of the traditional grammatical theory, Sībawayhi is often singled out nowadays as the main culprit who ought to be blamed for the complexity and inaccessibility of grammar. Expressions like ğināyat Sībawayhi (“Sībawayhi’s crime”) and yasquṭ Sībawayhi (“Down with Sībawayhi”) have recently found their way to the titles of published books!162 What escapes many authors, however, is that the prescriptive aspects of the Kitāb are closely connected with Sībawayhi’s analysis of speech as an interaction between a speaker and a listener in a defined context, and that in spite of the speculative nature of some of his most essential concepts (e.g. taqdīr, ʿilla and qiyās), it is the later grammarians who severed the original link between these concepts and their semantic component. Accordingly, much of the complexity of grammar is due to those later grammarians who largely abandoned Sībawayhi’s approach to the analysis of utterances although they retained most of his terms, arguments and analytical tools. Whether the founder of grammar or subsequent authors should be blamed for its complexity is not our main concern here. From a developmental point of view, however, we have previously encountered several examples in which the later grammarians’ approach is considerably more complex than Sībawayhi’s. To further demonstrate this fact and its adverse influence

160 161 162

Ušmūnī, Šarḥ III, 732; ʿAynī, Maqāṣid IV, 543; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān (SLQ). Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 125–126; Qiftị̄ , Inbāh III, 292. Cf. Ūzūn (2001) and Šūbāšī (2004).

comparison with subsequent authors

269

on the accessibility of grammatical rules to students—this time by citing a case in which the later grammarians have their own views that are opposed to Sībawayhi’s—the rest of this section will deal with the development of a particularly interesting syntactical phenomenon related to taqdīr, namely, the restoration of an element which changes inšāʾ (command or wish) into ḫ abar (statement) in certain contexts. Later grammarians usually resort to taqdīr in order to deny that inšāʾ may occur in the position of ḫ abar. In the frequently quoted example ḥ attā id̠ā ğanna l-ẓalāmu wa-ḫtalaṭ * ğāʾū bi-mad̠qin hal raʾayta l-d̠iʾba qaṭt ̣ (“[. . . the situation remained so] until when the night [, its darkness still] confused [with the last faint lights of dusk,] descended, they [then] brought diluted milk [the color of the wolf,] have you ever seen the wolf ”?), they restore maqūlin fīhi after mad̠qin to act as its adjective, and accordingly the sentence hal raʾayta becomes the reported speech and not the adjective of mad̠qin.163 In other words, the inšāʾī sentence hal raʾayta is not considered to be an acceptable adjective of mad̠qin, and hence it has to be replaced by a ḫ abarī construction like maqūlin fīhi. Such taqdīr normally occurs in specific contexts, most notably those in which maqūl fīhi or the likes of it fulfill the function of ṣifa (adjective) as in the above example, of ṣila (conjunctive sentence) following a relative pronoun, and of ḫ abar (here predicate of a nominal sentence), as other examples will demonstrate. Sībawayhi discusses in various parts of the Kitāb constructions which correspond to the three contexts mentioned above:164 a. In the case of ṣifa, his closest examples are constructions like marartu bi-rağulin ḥ asbika min rağulin, or kāfīka min rağulin, or šarʿika min rağulin.165 Although ḥ asbika, kāfīka and šarʿika are adjectives which have the same case-ending as the noun they modify, the examples in which they occur differ from a sentence like marartu bi-rağulin ẓarīfin because they belong to a class of words which Sībawayhi himself describes in a separate chapter as having the status and meaning of command and prohibition (tunzal bi-manzilat al-amr wa-l-nahy

163 Ibn al-Nāẓim, Šarḥ 495; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 404; Ibn Hišām, Awḍaḥ III, 310; Ušmūnī, Šarḥ II, 396. Other sources are listed in Hārūn (1972–1973: 493–494); Ḥ addād (1984: 734); Yaʿqūb (1996: X, 399). 164 Cf. Baalbaki (2000–2001: 194 ff.) for a discussion of these examples and of the historical development of the taqdīr of maqūl fīhi etc. in the tradition. 165 Kitāb I, 422.

270

chapter four

li-anna fīhā maʿnā l-amr wa-l-nahy).166 Yet, no taqdīr is used in the analysis of such constructions. b. In D̠ ū l-Rumma’s line alā ayyuhād̠ā l-manzilu l-dārisu llad̠ī * kaʾannaka lam yaʿhad bika l-ḥ ayya ʿāhidu (“O you effaced campsite which looks as if no intimate has ever been familiar with the old dwellers, in your [expanse]”), Sībawayhi does not use taqdīr to separate between kaʾannaka and the relative pronoun in whose ṣila it occurs.167 Although kaʾannaka is technically ḫ abar, not inšāʾ, the construction (a)llad̠ī kaʾannaka lam yaʿhad is different from the more customary allād̠ī lam yaʿhad, and one would have expected Sībawayhi to use taqdīr as the later grammarians do in similar cases (see Fārisī’s interpretation of Farazdaq’s line below). c. One of Sībawayhi’s chapters is entitled hād̠ā bāb min al-istifhām yakūn al-ism fīhi raf ʿan li-annaka tabtadiʾuhu li-tunabbih al-muḫāṭab t̠umma tastafhim baʿda d̠ālika (“This is a chapter [on a type] of interrogation in which the noun is in the nominative because you start by alerting the listener and then [you introduce] the interrogation”).168 In this type of construction, the mubtadaʾ (i.e. subject of a nominal sentence) can have an interrogative sentence as its predicate, as in Zaydun kam marratan raʾaytahu and ʿAbdullāhi hal laqītahu. In the next chapter which deals with amr and nahy (command and prohibition), both of which belong to what later grammarians refer to as inšāʾ, Sībawayhi asserts that the imperative can occur after the noun, just as the predicate does. Thus, one would say ʿAbdullāhi ḍribhu where ʿAbdullāhi is in the nominative and (i)ḍribhu is “constructed upon it” (cf. banayta ʿalayhi) as a predicate should be.169 In none of his examples does Sībawayhi resort to taqdīr in order to separate inšāʾ from a preceding ḫ abar. Ibn al-Sarrāğ (d. 316/929) is the first author who distinguishes, in a grammatical context, between ḫ abar and inšāʾ based on the criterion of true or false (ṣiḍq wa-kad̠ib).170 More relevant to our discussion, however,

166

Ibid., III, 100. Ibid., II, 193. 168 Ibid., I, 127; cf. Šantamarī, Nukat I, 258. 169 Kitāb I, 138. 170 Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Uṣūl II, 267–268. Note that the term inšāʾ does not occur in the text. See also Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 89 where taṣdīq and takd̠īb are applied to ḫabar only. 167

comparison with subsequent authors

271

is that he introduces qawl to transform inšāʾ into ḫ abar in the analysis of constructions like marartu bi-rağulin niʿma l-rağulu huwa, whose underlying structure, according to him, is marartu bi-rağulin taqūlu niʿma l-rağulu huwa. In the case of ṣila, he transforms the construction marartu bi-llad̠ī niʿma l-rağulu huwa to become marartu bi-llad̠ī yaqūlu niʿma l-rağulu huwa. Another fourth century grammarian, Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī (d. 377/987), also resorts to qawl in similar constructions, as in his interpretation of Farazdaq’s line wa-innī la-rāmin naẓratan qibala llatī * laʿallī wa-in šaṭtạ t nawāhā azūruhā (“I am surely poised to cast a look in the direction of her, she whom I will perhaps visit, even if the distance separating her [from me] grows remote”).171 The sentence beginning with laʿallī belongs to the realm of inšāʾ, rather than ḫ abar, and it occupies the position of the ṣila of the relative pronoun allatī. Fārisī offers two alternative explanations, the first of which is that azūruhā, the predicate of laʿalla, has replaced (sadda masadda) the ṣila which should be ḫ abar (i.e. not inšāʾ). The other possibility is that aqūlu fīhā—which is dropped in actual speech due to the length of the utterance (li-ṭūl al-kalām)—should be restored in order to provide an unequivocal ḫ abar (lā iškāl fīhi) after the relative pronoun. Ibn Ğinnī’s position (d. 395/1002) resembles that of his teacher’s, Fārisī, in that he acknowledges the need to change inšāʾ into ḫ abar since they signal two conflicting meanings (maʿnayāni mutadāfiʿāni).172 This notwithstanding, in his Iʿrāb al-Ḥ amāsa, quoted by Baġdādī (d. 1093/1682), he ridicules the use of ḥ ikāya (i.e. the introduction of qawl) and describes it as ṭarīq mahyaʿ (broad coarse) which can admit any interpretation, and as a dream which one is naturally inclined to accept as is.173 In other words, Ibn Ğinnī believes that the assumption of qawl is too loose a tool to be of any real value in interpreting usage. Instead, he suggests the restoration of a verb which introduces a more specific meaning to the construction. In the case of the previously cited hemistich ğāʾū bi-mad̠qin hal raʾayta l-d̠iʾba qaṭt,̣ he introduces yušbihu (“it resembles”) on the grounds that the color of the mad̠q (or its synonym ḍayḥ which appears in Ibn Ğinnī’s text) resembles the color of the

Fārisī, Šiʿr 400–402; cf. Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna V, 464–465. Ibn Ğinnī, Muḥtasab II, 165. 173 Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna VI, 150–151. The editor of the Ḫ izāna verifies the accuracy of Baġdādī’s quote by comparing it with the text of a manuscript of Ibn Ğinnī’s Iʿrāb al-Ḥ amāsa. 171 172

272

chapter four

wolf (hence, bi-ḍayḥ yušbih lawnuhu lawn al-d̠iʾb).174 Accordingly, Ibn Ğinnī’s criticism of the restoration of qawl stems merely from his objection to its inability to explain the intended meaning and not from any opposition to the employment of taqdīr to change inšāʾ into ḫ abar. Other than the restoration of maqūl fīhi, yaqūlu, etc. to change inšāʾ into ḫ abar, the later grammarians introduced new types to which this change was made applicable. To the contexts of ṣifa, ṣila and ḫabar (here predicate) are added new contexts such as ḥ āl (circumstantial accusative), badal (appositive), the predicate of kāna, the predicate of inna, and the second direct object of doubly transitive verbs.175 The expansion of a technique which basically rests on the taqdīr of unuttered elements of the construction—that is, on a process of intervention which imposes elements that interrupt the natural “flow” of the structure—obviously increased the complexity, and consequently impacted the pedagogical attainability of a large body of šawāhid. In this respect, the later grammarians’ position sharply contrasts with that of Sībawayhi’s. In fact, the issue of assuming qawl before inšāʾ in order to change it to ḫ abar may be one of the rare examples in which Sībawayhi’s views were completely reversed by the later grammarians, but it certainly is not a rare example of how their approach to syntactical analysis adversely affected the accessibility of grammatical rules. 5. Attempts to Restore the Role of Meaning In spite of Sībawayhi’s huge influence on subsequent grammarians and of his almost unchallenged authority in the essential components of the grammatical theory, we have argued in the previous sections of this chapter that there has been a gradual degeneration of his approach and a clear tendency towards standardization and normalization of grammatical rules. The most drastic change which the later grammarians introduced to Sībawayhi’s method is their preoccupation with formal considerations in the analysis of utterances to the extent that meaning was relegated to a secondary role. In fact, the imbalance between lafẓ and maʿnā became a distinctive feature of the tradition almost in its entirety as Sībawayhi’s dynamic and vivid approach was gradually abandoned.

174

Ibn Ğinnī, Muḥtasab II, 165. For the šawāhid which correspond to these contexts, see Baalbaki (2000–2001: 205–206). 175

comparison with subsequent authors

273

To be sure, the Kitāb does include a great deal of formal analysis and does embrace speculative elements in which Sībawayhi intervenes in constructions by proposing unuttered elements, particularly ʿawāmil, which he claims to be responsible for certain formal aspects of those constructions and for various relationships among their constituent elements. It is clear, however, that this aspect of his syntactical analysis comprises a semantic component whose link with lafẓ he is normally keen to highlight. Hence, formal considerations in the Kitāb cannot be studied in isolation of meaning. It would thus be futile to study, for example, Sībawayhi’s bāb al-fāʾ without linking the mood of the verb following the fāʾ with the four possibilities of meaning which he identifies, or to examine his views concerning the word order of constructions with kāna or its sisters without taking into consideration the influence of that order on meaning (cf. both examples in Section 3 above). On the other hand, the twenty-four possible variations of the word order of kāna Zaydun ākilan ṭaʿāmaka were indeed, as were numerous other constructions, examined by the later grammarians solely from the perspective of lafẓ without any recourse to meaning (also see Section 3 above). In contrast to the above-mentioned general tendency of later authors to give priority to lafẓ in their grammatical analysis, there were a few attempts to restore a central role to maʿnā and to highlight the speaker’s awareness as the most essential arbiter of usage. Apart from the scattered views which are sporadically given by or ascribed to some grammarians in their interpretation of specific constructions, and which seem to stem from their concern for maʿnā, there are a few authors who have systematically tried to place maʿnā at center stage of linguistic analysis. In this section, we shall examine what are distinctly the three most important attempts in this direction, namely, that of Ibn Ğinnī’s (d. 392/1002) who is most closely identified with the realm of luġa, that of Ğurğānī’s (d. 471/1078) who is one of the leading figures in balāġa, and that of Suhaylī’s (d. 581/1195) whose innovative thoughts in naḥw are unique as far as expanding the role of maʿnā in the theory of ʿawāmil is concerned. Following that, we shall briefly look into the attempt of Ğāḥiẓ (d. 255/869) to widen the scope of philology and to propose the concept of bayān, a collective term for all elements which disclose meaning, in order to redress the imbalance which, he believes, is symptomatic of the study of grammar due to the prominence of iʿrāb in the minds of the grammarians.

274

chapter four

a. Ibn Ğinnī (d. 392/1002): In several of his grammatical works on phonetics, morpho-phonology and syntax, such as Sirr ṣināʿat al-iʿrāb, al-Taṣrīf al-mulūkī, al-Munṣif and al-Lumaʿ fī l-ʿArabiyya, Ibn Ğinnī fully conforms to the general grammatical theory in spite of his distinctively fresh and innovative way of examining his material. His ingenuousness, however, is most clearly manifest in his impressive opus, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ, in which he raises various philological issues from a methodological and epistemological perspective. One major aspect of his approach directly concerns us here, namely, its similarity to that of Sībawayhi’s in analyzing the mental processes which the speaker undertakes in forming his utterances based on his linguistic competence. The notion of ḥ ikma (wisdom) is essential for the understanding of Ibn Ğinnī’s analysis of the speaker’s linguistic competence. He attributes ḥ ikma to the supposed creator of Arabic, or the wāḍiʿ, who is continuously portrayed as intuitively knowledgeable of what should be used or not and how usage should be. Being the rational basis which underlies Arabic, it is implied by Ibn Ğinnī that the ḥ ikma of the wāḍiʿ is tangible in every aspect of the language, such as the reasons (ʿilal), purposes (aġrāḍ) and intention (qaṣd) which speech involves; the change which recurring usage causes in forms and utterances; the historical order of appearance of the various parts of speech; the onomatopoeic arrangement of phonemes within the same word; the contemporaneity of a strong dialect with a weak one, etc.176 This ḥ ikma which Ibn Ğinnī attributes to the wāḍiʿ, however, is not merely an abstraction which he uses to justify the more general linguistic phenomena such as the ones cited above, but it is a principle that he believes should be sought by linguists (used here in a general sense to include naḥwiyyūn and luġawiyyūn alike) in their analysis of speech. Just as the ḥ ikma of the wāḍiʿ underlies the structure of the language, the intuitions of the native speakers underlie their actual utterances which the linguists examine. In other words, the abstract notion of ḥikma manifests itself in the linguistic material which is heard from native speakers and reported through riwāya. Obviously, if innate or natural disposition (which we can conveniently refer to as intuitiveness) can be proven to be an inalienable trait of native Arabic speakers, their utterances must reflect the original ḥ ikma of the wāḍiʿ

Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 237, 245; II, 31, 33, 162, 164; III, 317. Cf. chapter II, n. 144. 176

comparison with subsequent authors

275

since they are his true descendents, so to speak. From a different perspective, Ibn Ğinnī’s belief in the intuitiveness of native speakers entails that their utterances should not be dismissed by the analyst—a principle which accords with Sībawayhi’s position more than with the position of many subsequent grammarians who frequently reject attested usage which does not befit their qiyās. The notion of intuitiveness is often expressed in Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ by derivatives of the root ṭbʿ,177 by the terms salīqiyya and nağr,178 as well as by expressions which refer to the highly refined linguistic sense or the “purity” of reason which the native speakers enjoy (cf. min luṭf al-ḥ iss wa-ṣafāʾihi wa-naṣāʿat ğawhar al-fikr wa-naqāʾihi; quwwat nafsihi wa-luṭf ḥissihi).179 On one occasion, Ibn Ğinnī reports that he tried to examine the linguistic competence of a native speaker by tricking him into contradiction, only to discover that his informant intuitively objected to this deliberate attempt to confuse him. Ibn Ğinnī started by asking his Tamīmī informant whether he would say *ḍarabtu aḫūka (“I hit your brother”, the direct object being in the nominative), but his informant denied the use of aḫūka. He then asked him how he would say ḍarabanī aḫūka and the informant confirmed the use of aḫūka. Ibn Ğinnī tried at this point to confuse his informant by pointing out that he had just denied the use of aḫūka (i.e. in the earlier construction *ḍarabtu aḫūka). Objecting to Ibn Ğinnī’s comment, the Tamīmī reprehensively said: “What is this? These are two different perspectives” (ayšin hād̠ā? iḫtalafat ğihatā l-kalām).180 Ibn Ğinnī concluded that the answer of his informant is the best proof that native speakers scrutinize the syntactic positions of the elements of the structure ( fa-hal hād̠ā illā adall šayʾ ʿalā taʾammulihim mawāqiʿ al-kalām) and that they intuitively and consciously (ʿan mīza wa-ʿan baṣīra), and not haphazardly (tarğīman), assign to each element the position and case-ending which it merits. Even more indicative of intuitiveness, perhaps, is Ibn Ğinnī’s reference to a lad of the Muhayyā kinsfolk whom he describes as eloquent (wa-saʾaltu ġulāman faṣīḥ an).

177 Cf. the expressions ṣunʿ al-bārī subḥ ānahu fī an ṭabaʿa l-nās ʿalā hād̠ā; tahğum bihim ṭibāʿuhum ʿalā mā yanṭiqūna bihi; a-turāhu lā yuḥ sin bi-ṭabʿihi . . . hād̠ā l-qadr (Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ II, 117; III, 273, 275 respectively). 178 Ibid., I, 76. 179 Ibid., I, 239; III, 275. Cf. Suleiman (1999: 64–65) for the intuition of native speakers and the rationality of Arabic as they relate to Ibn Ğinnī’s method of taʿlīl. 180 Ibid., I, 76; cf. I, 250.

276

chapter four

In response to one of Ibn Ğinnī’s questions, this lad cited ḫiffa (lightness) as the reason for an unspecified usage.181 Having established, in such anecdotes, that native speakers possess an intuitive “feel” for the language and are thus cognizant of the most subtle and intricate details which the formulation of speech requires, Ibn Ğinnī introduces a further dimension to the issue of linguistic competence. As the title of one of his chapters indicates, he believes that the reasons and purposes which the linguists ascribe to the Arabs in their speech are indeed those which the Arabs intend (bāb fī anna l-ʿArab qad arādat min al-ʿilal wa-l-aġrāḍ mā nasabnāhu ilayhā wa-ḥ amalnāhu ʿalayhā).182 Ibn Ğinnī’s purpose in this line of argument is twofold: to prove the validity of some of the most basic axioms of the overall grammatical theory and, more importantly, to assert that linguists should reconstruct the mental processes which native speakers perform in order that they comprehend their intentions and consequently assign the correct ʿilal to linguistic phenomena. The latter purpose is manifestly reminiscent of one of the most distinctive features of Sībawayhi’s approach to the analysis of speech which, as we previously argued, was generally eroded in the works of later grammarians. Just as Sībawayhi, in the case of taqdīr for example, is not merely interested in the formal aspects through which unuttered operants are assigned to explain overt phenomena, but also in examining the speaker’s intention which warrants taqdīr itself, Ibn Ğinnī looks beyond the relationship between elided operants and their operands to determine the speaker’s interpretation of his own utterance by an intuitive process of taqdīr which largely corresponds to the stipulations of the grammarians. It is quite significant that in the Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ chapter referred to above, Ibn Ğinnī quotes none other than Sībawayhi to illustrate the native speakers’ competence in interpreting constructions which require taqdīr. The passage Ibn Ğinnī refers to is the one in which Sībawayhi says that if the Arabs are asked what they mean by the proverb allāhumma ḍabuʿan wa-d̠iʾban (“O God! [Bring together] a hyena and a wolf ”), they will make their intention clear by citing the elided verb (hence, iğmaʿ/iğʿal fīhā).183 Ibn Ğinnī concludes that this is a clear statement (taṣrīḥ ) to the effect that what the gram-

181 182 183

Ibid., I, 78. Ibid., I, 237 ff. Kitāb I, 255; Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 250.

comparison with subsequent authors

277

marians ascribe to the Arabs (nansibuhu ilayhim) is confirmed by the Arabs’ interpretation of their own speech. Outside the sphere of taqdīr, Ibn Ğinnī reports on the authority of Aṣmaʿī (d. 216/831) that when Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ (d. 154/770) asked a Yemeni man why he said ğāʾathu kitābī (“My letter reached him”; that is, instead of ğāʾahu kitābī, with a masculine verb), he responded by asserting the correctness of the usage on the grounds that kitāb is synonymous with the feminine word ṣaḥ īfa (leaf, sheet).184 According to Ibn Ğinnī, it would be absurd if one were to expect Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ and his sophisticated generation—after having heard a rough and inexperienced Bedouin (Aʿrābiyyan ğāfiyan ġuflan) specify a ʿilla to justify his use of the feminine instead of the masculine—not to follow suit and ascribe to the Arabs those ʿilal which explain the various phenomena which characterize their speech. In another example, Ibn Ğinnī defends the validity of several grammatical principles on the basis of a comment made by ʿUmāra b. ʿAqīl (d. 239/853), famous in the sources for his eloquence.185 Asked why he reads wa-lā l-laylu sābiqu l-nahāri (“Nor can the night outstrip the day”; Q 36: 40) instead of sābiqun al-nahāra in which the nunated active participle is followed by its direct object, ʿUmāra confirms that he does not use the latter form although it is awzan (which Ibn Ğinnī elucidates as aqwā wa-amkan fī l-nafs “stronger and of a greater impact”).186 Ibn Ğinnī finds in ʿUmāra’s response confirmation of the validity of the following grammatical principles: (1) that a certain usage can have an aṣl that differs from it (i.e. sābiqun al-nahāra is the aṣl of sābiqu l-nahāri), (2) that linguistic phenomena occur for specific reasons (here, to avoid t̠iqal “heaviness”), and (3) that the Arabs, due to their inclination towards taḫfīf (lightening), might use a certain form in spite of their belief that another form is stronger and has a greater impact. Similarly, Ibn Ğinnī finds in the expression iḫtalafat ğihatā l-kalām used by the previously mentioned Tamīmī who refuses to say aḫūka (if the construction of which it is part is *ḍarabtu aḫūka) an equivalent to the grammarians’ expression ṣāra l-maf ʿūl fāʿilan which refers to the subject of a verb becoming an object of that verb in another construction.

Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 249; II, 416. Cf. Ibn al-Muʿtazz, Ṭabaqāt 316–317 where ʿUmāra is described as the most eloquent of people (afṣaḥ al-nās). 186 Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 125, 249. 184

185

278

chapter four

On the question of ʿawāmil, Ibn Ğinnī’s position may be seen as a reaction to the unbalanced focus of post-Sībawayhi grammarians on lafẓ at the expense of maʿnā. He interprets the grammarians’ distinction between lafẓī (formal) and maʿnawī (abstract) ʿawāmil as one way of distinguishing between ʿamal which is accompanied by an uttered ʿāmil and ʿamal which is not.187 However, by stressing that in actual fact ( fī l-ḥ aqīqa), all types of ʿamal—i.e. the nominal types of raf ʿ (nominative), naṣb (accusative), and ğarr (genitive), and the verbal ones of raf ʿ (indicative), naṣb (subjunctive), and ğazm (jussive)—are produced by the speaker himself (li-l-mutakallim nafsihi), he effectively dismisses the distinction between lafẓī and maʿnawī ʿawāmil as a purely didactic technique which does not take the role of the speaker into consideration. Furthermore, Ibn Ğinnī tries to redress the imbalance caused by the preponderance of lafẓī ʿawāmil in the tradition over maʿnawī ones (cf. our discussion of Suhaylī in “c” below) without rejecting the universally held grammatical views relating to ʿawāmil. He achieves this by arguing that lafẓī ʿawāmil are in fact ascribable to maʿnawī ones (al-ʿawāmil al-lafẓiyya rāğiʿa fī l-ḥ aqīqa ilā annahā maʿnawiyya) and that what causes the subject of the verb to be nominative and its object to be accusative is their maʿnawī, and not lafẓī, aspect. Central to his argument is his insistence that it is only to the speaker—and not to the phonemes themselves, such as ḍ, r and b in ḍaraba—that ʿamal should be ascribed. From a historical perspective, Ibn Ğinnī’s position is much closer to that of Sībawayhi’s than to the position of most third/ ninth and fourth/tenth century grammarians who give prominence to lafẓī aspects rather than maʿnawī ones. Although Ibn Ğinnī expresses his position more explicitly than Sībawayhi does in the Kitāb, the latter’s position—as we previously argued188—is clear in tracing virtually all the characteristics of the utterance, including ʿamal, to the speaker, particularly to the choices he makes in formulating his utterance in order to express the exact meaning which he intends to impart to the listener. It is interesting to note that the Ẓ āhirite Andalusian author, Ibn Maḍāʾ (d. 592/1196), adopts Ibn Ğinnī’s conclusion that government is ascribable only to the speaker ( fa-l-ʿamal . . . innamā huwa li-lmutakallim nafsihi lā šayʾ ġayrihi). He also highlights Ibn Ğinnī’s use of nafsihi as a corroborative to emphasize al-mutakallim and his assertion

187 188

Ibid., I, 109. Cf. above, 192 ff.

comparison with subsequent authors

279

that nothing other than the speaker can cause government.189 As a Ẓ āhirite, Ibn Maḍāʾ recognizes the oddness of his enthusiastic support of a Muʿtazilite view and thus hastens to clarify that, contrary to the Muʿtazilites, the doctrine of ahl al-ḥ aqq (i.e. the Ẓ āhirites) stipulates that the real producer of case-endings (here aṣwāt) in reality is God (innamā hiya min fiʿl Allāh taʿālā), and that their production is only metaphorically attributed to the speaker. By frequently referring to the speaker’s intention (cf. his use of yanwī and yurīd),190 Ibn Maḍāʾ is in broad agreement with authors who do take meaning into consideration in their syntactical analysis. In line with the fondness of formulating universal principles which can be referred to in interpreting usage, Ibn Ğinnī establishes that maʿnā is a more widespread and abundant factor in speech than lafẓ ( fa-l-maʿnā id̠an ašyaʿ wa-asyar ḥukman min al-lafẓ) because one cannot but bestow a maʿnawī dimension on lafẓī aspects, whereas no lafẓī dimension is needed for visualizing what is maʿnawī.191 On several occasions, Ibn Ğinnī expresses his preference to interpretations which invoke maʿnā to those that are based on lafẓ. An interesting example is his discussion of Ḫ ansāʾ’s line which describes a she-camel bereaved of a child: tartaʿu mā rataʿat ḥ attā id̠ā ddakarat * fa-innamā hiya iqbālun wa-idbāru (“She grazes for as long as she grazes, [however], when she remembers, she is [transformed into] but [a nervous] march back and forth”). Ibn Ğinnī refers to two possible interpretations which are normally cited by the grammarians:192 either that the bereaved animal is portrayed as being itself iqbāl and idbār because of the recurrence of its to-and-fro motion, or that the expression was originally d̠ātu iqbālin wa-idbāri but the construct d̠ātu was elided, causing iqbāl to be in the nominative.193 According to Ibn Ğinnī, the stronger of the two interpretations (aqwā l-taʾwīlayni) is the first, obviously because it is based on maʿnā rather than lafẓ. Not surprisingly, Ibn Ğinnī is in agreement with Sībawayhi who interprets the expression as an instance of saʿat al-kalām (latitude of speech),194 a term which largely corresponds to the later term mağāz and Ibn Maḍāʾ, Radd 77. Ibid., 89, 93. 191 Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 111. 192 Cf. Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab III, 230; Ibn al-Šağarī, Amālī I, 71. 193 Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ II, 203. 194 Kitāb I, 337. Note also that, in commenting on a line which he cites after Ḫ ansāʾ’s line, and which he also interprets on the basis of saʿat al-kalām, Sībawayhi indirectly mentions the possibility of an elided construct in such constructions. 189 190

280

chapter four

has a strong semantic component. Another example in which Ibn Ğinnī agrees with Sībawayhi’s meaning-based interpretations is his acceptance of the previously cited expression tuwāhiqu riğlāhā yadāhā (“Her legs and arms move in unison”), in which yadāhā is in the nominative although it is the direct object of tuwāhiqu, on the grounds that this verb indicates reciprocity. As previously mentioned,195 Mubarrad rejects this usage by dismissing the riwāya of the line in which it occurs. The similarity between Sībawayhi and Ibn Ğinnī in interpreting lafẓī aspects of the utterance by recourse to maʿnā is nowhere clearer than in the Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ chapter allocated to the notion of al-ḥ aml ʿalā l-maʿnā, which may be roughly translated as syllepsis or semantic approximation, but which Ibn Ğinnī uses in a more general sense to refer to the influence of the semantic associations in the mind of the speaker on his utterances.196 In this chapter, Ibn Ğinnī strives to demonstrate the centrality of maʿnā to the correct interpretation of a host of linguistic phenomena. He thus describes al-ḥ aml ʿalā l-maʿnā as extremely widespread (wāsiʿ fī hād̠ihi l-luġa ğiddan) and even as an unfathomable sea (baḥ r lā yunkaš wa-lā yuft̠ağ etc.).197 Obviously, Ibn Ğinnī does not merely want to cite a few examples of al-ḥ aml ʿalā l-maʿnā; rather he wants to proclaim that proper linguistic analysis has, by definition, to examine the meaning of utterances. In view of the tendency of post-Sībawayhi grammarians to give precedence to lafẓ over maʿnā, Ibn Ğinnī’s position is best interpreted as a zealous attempt to restore to maʿnā its primary role in grammatical analysis. His assertion that the criterion for the correctness or incorrectness of speech is maʿnā (al-kalām innamā yuṣliḥ uhu aw yufsiduhu l-maʿnā)198 should thus be viewed within this historical context. In fact, Ibn Ğinnī goes a long way towards a meaning-based approach to the study of speech by setting the general principle that when the Arabs practice al-ḥ aml ʿalā l-maʿnā, they hardly reconsider their lafẓ (wa-ʿlam anna l-ʿArab id̠ā ḥ amalat ʿalā l-maʿnā lam takad turāğiʿ al-lafẓ).199 Based on this principle, Ibn Ğinnī interprets a number of utterances such as the following ones: (1) wa-lā arḍa abqala ibqālahā (“and no land became green with plants as it did”), where the masculine verb abqala is used

195 196 197 198 199

Cf. above, 243. Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ II, 411–435. Ibid., I, 423, 435. Ibid., II, 433. Ibid., II, 420.

comparison with subsequent authors

281

with the feminine noun arḍ because the latter is associated in the mind of the speaker with mawḍiʿ, its masculine synonym; (2) šakartu man aḥ sanū ilayya ʿalā fiʿlihi (“I thanked those who did good to me for his [i.e. their] deed”), where the singular suffix is used in fiʿlihi instead of the plural suffix—or alternatively šakartu man aḥ sana ilayya ʿalā fiʿlihim (“I thanked the one who did good to me or their [i.e. his] deed”), where the plural suffix is used in fiʿlihim instead of the singular—because the suffix of the first verb of the utterance determines the intended meaning; (3) ʿalaftuhā tibnan wa-māʾan bāridan (“I fed her with straw and [gave her to drink] cold water”), where saqaytuhā is understood but not uttered based on the semantic relationship between feeding and giving water to drink; and (4) uḥ illa lakum laylata l-ṣiyāmi l-rafat̠u ilā nisāʾikum (“Permitted to you on the night of the fasts is the approach to your wives”; Q 2: 187), where the preposition ilā is used with rafat̠ because the latter is synonymous with ifḍāʾ which is normally accompanied by ilā.200 We can conclude with a very significant instance in which Ibn Ğinnī’s position against the consensus of the grammarians is inspired by Sībawayhi’s methods of analysis. Ibn Ğinnī as well as later authors 201 report that the grammarians are unanimous in their rejection of constructions in which a pronoun referring to a subsequent object is suffixed to the subject of a verb, as in ḍaraba ġulāmuhu Zaydan (“His [,Zayd’s,] servant hit Zayd”) and zāna nawruhu l-šağara (“Their [,the trees’,] blossoms adorned the trees”). The grammarians’ rejection of such constructions is based on their conviction that the hierarchical status of the subject and the object relative to each other necessitates that the former be fronted and the latter deferred (al-fāʿil rutbatuhu l-taqaddum wa-l-maf ʿūl rutbatuhu l-taʾaḫ ḫur).202 In spite of the grammarians’ consensus, Ibn Ğinnī casts a new look at the issue and argues that, from a different perspective, these constructions are justifiable ( fa-inna hunā ṭarīqan āḫar yusawwiġuka ġayrahu) because the fronting of the object is so widely used in the Qurʾān and eloquent speech ( faṣīḥ al-kalām) that it has become an established fact of usage. In other words, the syntactic phenomenon of fronting the object and deferring the subject—although

200

Ibid., II, 411, 420, 431, 435 respectively. Ibid., I, 239–298; cf. Ibn al-Šağarī, Amālī I, 101–102; Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ I, 76; Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ 216; ʿAynī, Maqāṣid II, 489; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 66. 202 Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 294. 201

282

chapter four

it is not as common as the fronting of the subject and deferment of the object—is sufficiently frequent to warrant its treatment as an independent norm of usage (qism qāʾim bi-raʾsihi; kaʾannahu huwa l-aṣl ).203 The example which Ibn Ğinnī examines in most detail is Nābiġa’s hemistich ğazā rabbuhu ʿannī ʿAdiyya bna Ḥ ātimin (“May his [,ʿAdiyy’s,] God reward ʿAdiyy b. Ḥ ātim on my behalf ”). This hemistich does not occur in the Kitāb, and neither does the issue of the fronted subject whose suffix refers to a deferred object. This notwithstanding, Ibn Ğinnī resorts to the Kitāb for defending the construction at hand by highlighting Sībawayhi’s method of analyzing the resemblance between two expressions in order to justify some of their formal characteristics. He notes that Sībawayhi justifies the genitive in al-ḍāribu l-rağuli by its similarity to al-ḥ asanu l-wağhi, but because the genitive is so widely used in the first construction, Sībawayhi reverses the comparison and likens al-ḥ asanu l-wağhi to al-ḍāribu l-rağuli from exactly the same perspective, i.e. the use of the genitive. According to Ibn Ğinnī, Sībawayhi’s insight into the intricate relationship between the two constructions and his citing of the similarity of the farʿ (subsidiary) to the aṣl (origin), followed by his citing of the similarity of the aṣl to the farʿ, should be a source of inspiration in interpreting constructions such as the one used by Nābiġa. Accordingly, since the fronting of the object (originally a farʿ ) has become an aṣl in the mind of the speaker, it may be argued that Nābiġa’s construction originally was ğazā ʿAdiyya bna Ḥ ātimin rabbuhu—in which the object is fronted—but then rabbuhu was placed immediately after the verb without any further change being introduced. b. Ğurğānī (d. 471/1078): Like Ibn Ğinnī, Ğurğānī was groomed in the grammatical tradition and authored several books in which he fully adopted the traditional approach to grammatical analysis. Other than al-ʿAwāmil al-miʾa l-naḥwiyya, in which he labels ninety-eight of the ʿawāmil as lafẓī and only two as maʿnawī,204 such books include his didactic summary of ʿawāmil entitled al-Ğumal, his synopsis of morphology entitled al-Miftāḥ fī l-ṣarf, and his commentary on Fārisī’s (d. 377/987) Ῑḍāḥ entitled al-Muqtaṣid fī šarḥ al-Ῑḍāḥ . His two most renowned works, however, are Asrār al-balāġa and Dalāʾil al-iʿğāz, both of which belong to the realm of stylistics. It is mainly in his Dalāʾil that Ğurğānī elaborates his views on the study of structure and advances his

203 204

Ibid., I, 295, 298. Ğurğānī, ʿAwāmil 85–86, 312.

comparison with subsequent authors

283

theory of naẓm (lit. organization of the elements of the utterance), in which he defines word order—which more broadly refers to the complex semantic and syntactic interrelationships among the constituents of the utterance—as nothing other than the proper adherence to the discipline of grammar (laysa l-naẓm illā an taḍaʿ kalāmaka l-waḍʿ allad̠ī yaqtaḍīhi ʿilm al-naḥw).205 Accordingly, he identifies the study of naẓm with seeking what he calls syntactical meanings (al-naẓm huwa tawaḫḫī maʿānī l-naḥw).206 A detailed examination of Ğurğānī’s theory of naẓm is beyond the scope of this book,207 and this section will deal with the difference between his approach and that of the grammarians’ within the context of the development which took place after Sībawayhi in the role assigned to meaning in syntactical analysis. As we argued earlier, there is in Sībawayhi’s syntactical analysis a strong semantic component which is closely linked to his scrutiny of the formal characteristics of structure. Although the claim of some authors208 that Sībawayhi and his teacher Ḫ alīl are the founders of the study of balāġa is an obvious exaggeration, it is not difficult to understand why such a claim has been made in the first place. In fact, the part of balāġī studies known as ʿilm al-maʿānī (lit. science of meanings) examines meaning from the perspective of its relationship with the specific syntactical form used to express it and is thus considerably close to grammatical study, at least such as the case is in Sībawayhi’s Kitāb. As subsequent grammarians gradually gave precedence to lafẓ over maʿnā, the need grew to reassert the semantic component in syntactical analysis, hence the establishment of ʿilm al-maʿānī independently of naḥw. It is obvious that ʿilm al-maʿānī owes much to Sībawayhi, but it seems that the preponderance of formal considerations over meaning in the works of post-Sībawayhi grammarians made it unlikely for ʿilm al-maʿānī to be incorporated into naḥw, although the latter is the natural domain for the study of meaning as Ğurğānī’s theory of naẓm implies. Yet in spite of Sībawayhi’s keenness on examining the relationship between lafẓ and maʿnā, there are instances in which his interest in justifying the case-endings of two related constructions results in failing to highlight their semantic differences. Reference has been made

Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil 64; cf. 282, 403. Ibid., 276, 282, 310, 403–404; cf. Ğurğānī, Asrār 65. 207 For the major aspects of this theory, cf. Zahrān (1979); Baalbaki (1983: 7–23); Rammuny (1985: 351–371); Owens (1988: 248–263). 208 Cf. Marāġī (1950); Nāṣif (1953); Ḥ usayn (1970). 205 206

284

chapter four

to constructions of the type a-ʿAbdallāhi ḍarabtahu which Sībawayhi interprets as *a-ḍarabta ʿAbdallāhi ḍarabtahu, resulting in the transformation of nominal sentences to verbal ones.209 In analyzing similar constructions, Ğurğānī explains that to begin with the verb indicates the speaker’s doubt about the action, whereas to begin with the noun indicates his doubt about the agent who does that action (cf. a-faʿalta vs. a-anta faʿalta).210 Based on such examples (more of which shall follow), Ğurğānī criticizes the grammarians for their failure to examine the influence of word order on meaning and to assess the semantic implications of any change in that order. But, although he refers to the naḥwiyyūn as one entity,211 one should always remember that, in his meaning-based approach to syntactical analysis, he is considerably closer to Sībawayhi than to later grammarians up to his contemporaries. His Dalāʾil is best seen as a reformative attempt to reestablish the link between naḥw and maʿnā, and from this perspective, the difference between Sībawayhi and subsequent grammarians vis-à-vis the role of maʿnā ought to be taken into account in comparing Ğurğānī’s views with those of the “grammarians” who are often referred to as a single group. It is within these parameters that the comparative examples cited below become more meaningful from a developmental point of view. Ğurğānī’s most compelling arguments pertain to the grammarians’ treatment of word order. He criticizes both Sībawayhi and the naḥwiyyūn in general for restricting the semantic implications of taqdīm and taʾḫīr (hysteron-proteron) to their notion of ʿināya and ihtimām (lit. interest and concern), according to which the speaker preposes the elements which he wants to emphasize. In the case of the subject and object, Ğurğānī quotes Sībawayhi who says that although speakers are interested in and concerned with both of them (wa-in kānā ğamīʿan yuhimmānihim wa-yaʿniyānihim), they prepose whichever of the two is more important for them to express (innamā yuqaddimūna llad̠ī bayānuhu ahamm lahum wa-hum bi-bayānihi aʿnā).212 Although Ğurğānī quotes Sībawayhi’s text almost verbatim, he unjustly claims that Sībawayhi provides no illustrative example for the change in word order between subject and object, and mentions, immediately following that claim, the naḥwiyyūn and identifies their positions with that of Sībawayhi’s. As our previous 209 210 211 212

Cf. above, 177. Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil 87. Ibid., 84–85, 145, 271. Kitāb I, 34; cf. Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil 84.

comparison with subsequent authors

285

discussions demonstrate, the position of the grammarians is generally different from Sībawayhi’s as far as maʿnā is concerned. Furthermore, Sībawayhi does exemplify the change in word order in which the subject or object may be either fronted or deferred. In fact, not only does he mention the constructions ḍaraba ʿAbdullāhi Zaydan/ḍaraba Zaydan ʿAbdullāhi in the same paragraph which Ğurğānī quotes, but he also exemplifies similar taqdīm and taʾḫ īr in constructions with passive verbs, such as kusiya ʿAbdullāhi l-t̠awba/kusiya l-t̠awba Zaydun and uʿṭiya ʿAbdullāhi l-māla/uʿṭiya l-māla ʿAbdullāhi, and even compares the second construction in each of the two latter pairs with ḍaraba Zaydan ʿAbdullāhi.213 Furthermore, Sībawayhi extends the comparison of taqdīm and taʾḫīr in constructions which begin with ḍaraba to constructions which begin with kāna (cf. kāna ʿAbdullāhi aḫ āka/kāna aḫ āka ʿAbdullāhi)214 and points out the similarity between the latter two constructions which begin with kāna and constructions which begin with inna (cf. inna asadan fī l-ṭarīqi rābiḍan/inna bi-l-ṭarīqi asadan rābiḍun),215 once more citing ʿināya and ihtimām as the reason for the specific word order in question. Other passages in the Kitāb strongly suggest that Sībawayhi’s analysis of the semantic implications of taqdīm and taʾḫīr is far from restricted to the notion of ʿināya and ihtimām. One of his most telling examples is that in which he considers the difference between constructions in which the interrogative particle is followed by a noun (e.g. a-Zaydun ʿindaka am ʿAmrun and a-Zaydan laqīta am Bišran) and those in which the noun is deferred and hence separated from the particle (e.g. a-ʿindaka Zaydun am ʿAmrun and a-laqīta Zaydan am ʿAmran).216 According to him, the first two constructions—in which the noun immediately follows the interrogative particle—indicate that the speaker knows that either Zayd or ʿAmr is with the addressee and that the addressee has met either Zayd or Bišr, but still wants to specify the person who is with that addressee (in the first construction) and the person whom the addressee has met (in the second construction). In contrast, the deferment of the noun implies that the speaker is neither sure whether his addressee is with either of the two specified individuals (in the first construction) nor whether the addressee has met either of them (in the 213 214 215 216

Kitāb I, 41–42. Ibid., I, 45. Ibid., II, 143. Ibid., II, 169–170. Cf. this example and other ones in Baalbaki (1983: 17–19).

286

chapter four

second construction). In an equally telling example, Sībawayhi compares between constructions which begin with verbs expressing doubt (e.g. aẓunnu ʿAmran d̠āhiban) and constructions in which these verbs are neutralized (tulġā; e.g. ʿAbdullāhi—aẓunnu—d̠āhibun).217 He observes that in the first construction, aẓunnu is doubly transitive whereas, in the second, it does not govern any object. Yet apart from the formal issue, Sībawayhi delves into the difference in meaning between the two constructions and explains that the longer the construction before the verb which expresses doubt is introduced, the better it is to neutralize that verb. The reason he gives is that it is better to defer the introduction of the verb which indicates doubt until one exhausts the parts of the construction which express certitude. The alternative, in other words, would be to begin with expressing one’s doubt by placing the direct objects of the verb at the beginning of the construction, only to neutralize the very verb which indicates doubt. Other instances in which Sībawayhi considers the difference in meaning between constructions which differ in taqdīm and taʾḫīr include his discussion of wa-l-Lāhi id̠an lā af ʿalu/id̠an wa-l-Lāhi lā af ʿalu and man yaʾtinī ātihi (or ātīhi in the indicative if man is a relative pronoun and not a conditional particle) /ātī man yaʾtīnī.218 In all such examples, Sībawayhi’s discussion of the formal characteristics of constructions, including justification of the various case-endings, is inseparable from his scrutiny of meaning. Obviously, this is based on his conviction that the form which the speaker chooses for his utterance is the one which best expresses the meaning he intends to convey to the listener. In his assessment of Sībawayhi’s analysis of taqdīm and taʾḫīr, Ğurğānī does not seem to take the above-mentioned examples into consideration since he only acknowledges Sībawayhi’s mention of ʿināya and ihtimām and argues that this notion is incapable of justifying semantic differences between constructions unless one determines where ʿināya resides in the construction and why a fronted element is more important than the other elements of the utterance (cf. the expression min ayna kānat tilka l-ʿināya wa-lima kāna ahamm).219 It is highly unlikely that Ğurğānī, himself a grammarian in the traditional sense as was demonstrated earlier, was unaware of the Kitāb’s passages in which Sībawayhi goes

217 218 219

Ibid., I, 119–120; cf. I, 56. Ibid., III, 14–15, 69–71. Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil 85.

comparison with subsequent authors

287

well beyond the notion of ʿināya and ihtimām to highlight the semantic component of taqdīm and taʾḫīr. More consistent with contents of the Kitāb, however, is Ğurğānī’s objection to the grammarians’ view according to which taqdīm and taʾḫīr can be mufīd (i.e. of semantic value) in certain constructions but not in others. According to Ğurğānī, if the fronting of, say, the direct object before the verb is proven to be mufīd in comparison with its deferment, then that ought to be considered an uninterrupted principle that is applicable in all cases ( fa-qad wağaba an takūn tilka qaḍiyya fī kull šayʾ wa-kull ḥ āl).220 His lengthy discussion of different types of taqdīm and taʾḫīr indeed demonstrates how the constructions which represent each type can be interpreted according to a single criterion of universal applicability. 221 This part of the Dalāʾil rests on Ğurğānī’s belief that the notion of taqdīm and taʾḫīr deserves to be studied in its own right and not merely through scattered comments which the grammarians make when they compare the word order of pairs of constructions. More specifically, his criticism of the grammarians can be pinned down to their inconsistency in assessing the impact of word order on meaning. As far as Sībawayhi is concerned, and in spite of the numerous examples in which he examines taqdīm and taʾḫīr from a semantic perspective, there are a few instances in which he is so preoccupied with the formal aspects of the constructions he discusses that he totally ignores the difference in meaning between pairs of constructions which differ solely in their word order. This is true of his discussion of constructions which exhibit conflict in government (tanāzuʿ ), such as ḍarabanī wa-ḍarabtuhum qawmuka/ḍarabanī qawmuka wa-ḍarabtuhum; constructions with doubly transitive verbs, such as hād̠ā muʿṭin Zaydan dirhaman/hād̠ā muʿṭin dirhaman Zaydan; constructions in which a nominal sentence is followed by a circumstantial accusative, such as fīhā ʿAbdullāhi qāʾiman/ʿAbdullāhi fīhā qāʾiman; and constructions with prepositional phrases dependent on verbs, such as ayyu man fī l-dāri raʾayta afḍalu and ayyu man raʾayta fī l-dāri afḍalu.222 It is very significant that, as part of his approach to the study of taqdīm and taʾḫīr from a purely semantic point of view, Ğurğānī ignores the formal notion of taṣarruf which Sībawayhi identifies with the restrictions that may apply to linguistic elements as far as word order is concerned. 220

Ibid., 86–87. Cf. ibid., 87–111 for the various types of taqdīm and taʾḫ īr which Ğurğānī examines. 222 Kitāb I, 78, 175; II, 88, 405 respectively. 221

288

chapter four

It was pointed out earlier that the concept of taṣarruf is directly linked in the Kitāb with the quwwa (strength) assigned to an element relative to other comparable elements.223 For example, inna is said to be not as strong as a verb because its predicate may not precede its noun (cf. *inna aḫūka ʿAbdallāhi) whereas the direct object of a transitive verb may precede its subject.224 Similarly, kāna, laysa and mā are hierarchically arranged according to their quwwa based on considerations related to word order.225 In contrast, nowhere does taṣarruf feature in Ğurğānī’s theory of naẓm, obviously because it is not a semantic criterion. Abū l-Nağm al-ʿIğlī’s line qad aṣbaḥ at Ummu l-Ḫ iyāri taddaʿī * ʿalayya d̠anban kullahu/kulluhu lam aṣnaʿi (“Umm al-Ḫ iyār has turned to accusing me of an offence not a part of which I have committed”) is interesting from the perspective of its word order. Grammatical rules do allow the fronting of the direct object of a transitive verb (hence kullahu), but the nominative is equally permissible if the speaker wants to begin with the subject of a nominal sentence. Hence, both kullahu and kulluhu can be defended from a formal point of view, as is clear in the Kitāb and other grammatical sources.226 Sībawayhi does describe the use of the nominative in this construction as ḍaʿīf, but this is a reference merely to lafẓ and not maʿnā. Similarly related to lafẓ is his comment that the use of the accusative would not damage the meter (lā yaksir al-bayt), and hence Abū l-Nağm could have used that option. In sharp contrast to this, Ğurğānī examines the line solely from the semantic angle and arrives at a completely different conclusion. According to him, the accusative is certainly impermissible because it contradicts the intention of the speaker.227 Had Abū l-Nağm said kullahu lam aṣnaʿi, he would have admitted partial guilt of what Umm al-Ḫ iyār accused him. The use of the nominative (i.e. kulluhu lam aṣnaʿi), on the other hand, prevents such a possibility since it implies no admission of guilt whatsoever. Obviously, Ğurğānī employs maʿnā as the sole criterion in deciding which case-ending is permissible, irrespective of the grammatical system’s ability to justify, on purely formal grounds, the use of both the accusative and the nominative in kullahu/kulluhu. This position is identified by Baġdādī (d. 1093/1682) with that of the rhetoricians’

223 224 225 226 227

Cf. above, 130–132. Ibid., I, 59. Ibid., I, 46; II, 37, 400. Ibid., I, 85; Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ III, 303–304; Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna I, 359–363. Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil 215.

comparison with subsequent authors

289

(al-balāġiyyūn/ʿulamāʾ al-bayān) in general, as opposed to the view of Sībawayhi and other grammarians.228 The difference in approach between Ğurğānī, on the one hand, and Sībawayhi and the grammarians, on the other, can also be demonstrated at the level of the study of some particles in the Dalāʾil. In particular, Ğurğānī’s lengthy study of innamā229 in fact dwarfs the few and scattered comments which Sībawayhi and the other grammarians make concerning this particle. After meticulously examining innamā from a semantic point of view, Ğurğānī ridicules the grammarians for not realizing the potential of this particle in expressing the speaker’s intentions and for limiting their observations to the formal aspect related to the annulment of inna as an operant when mā is suffixed to it.230 Indeed, Sībawayhi’s observations on innamā are restricted to its formal characteristics, namely, that, unlike inna, it does not govern what follows it; that it is followed by a nominative subject; that it is formed from the merger of inna and mā; and that it fulfills the function of ibtidāʾ in positions where anna may not be used.231 As part of his discussion of innamā, Ğurğānī also examines the exceptive particle illā, and in particular the meaning of mā . . . illā constructions. He explains, for example, that the construction mā ğāʾanī illā Zaydun may be used to express two different meanings: either that Zayd is the only person who came, or that the one who came was none other than Zayd.232 One of the examples which Ğurğānī mentions, ʿAmr b. Maʿdī Karib’s line qad ʿalimat Salmā wa-ğārātuhā * mā qaṭtạ ra l-fārisa illā anā (“Salma and her neighbors have known that none but I knocked the knight down”), is a šāhid in the Kitāb.233 Sībawayhi cites this line as an example of the occurrence of the independent, rather than the suffixed, pronoun after illā, and although he discusses illā constructions at length as part of his more general discussion of istit̠nāʾ (exception), he does not mention the semantic significance of the mā . . . illā construction in Ibn Maʿdī Karib’s šāhid or any other. Instead, he focuses on the permissibility or otherwise of the case-endings of the nouns after illā in the various constructions 228 Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna I, 361. Cf. Baalbaki (1991: 92–94) for other examples of šawāhid whose interpretations by the balāġiyyūn is meaning-based in contrast with the formal interpretation of the naḥwiyyūn. 229 Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil 252–274. 230 Ibid., 271–272. 231 Kitāb II, 138, 418; III, 116, 130, 153, 331. 232 Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil 260. 233 Kitāb II, 353.

290

chapter four

he examines. The discussion of the šāhid by subsequent grammarians follows Sībawayhi’s model and does not touch on any of the semantic issues which Ğurğānī raises in connection with mā . . . illā constructions. The congruence between Sībawayhi and the other grammarians in this case, as opposed to Ğurğānī’s semantic interest, ought not, however, to obliterate the fact that Sībawayhi and Ğurğānī are generally closer to each other in their approach to maʿnā than to post-Sībawayhi grammarians. Both authors—albeit to different degrees—examine the impact of lafẓ on maʿnā as opposed to those grammarians who largely ignore semantic analysis and focus on formal aspects of usage. c. Suhaylī (d. 581/1185): Like his two predecessors, Ibn Ğinnī and Ğurğānī, Suhaylī seeks to expand the role of maʿnā in grammatical study. His attempt, however, is considerably narrower in scope than theirs since it is, to a large extent, focused on a single aspect of grammatical analysis, namely, ʿamal (government). Unlike his Andalusian contemporary, Ibn Maḍāʾ (d. 592/1196), who rejects the traditional theory of ʿamal and describes it as superfluous and discardable,234 Suhaylī advances views which imply that the theory should be amended in ways which would reveal the importance of maʿnā as an essential criterion in interpreting usage. Suhaylī obviously wanted to alert his readers to his innovative and independent thoughts by choosing the title Natāʾiğ al-fikr fī l-naḥ w (lit. The Yields of Thinking about Grammar) for his collection of seventy-seven masāʾil arranged according to their order of appearance in Zağğāğī’s (d. 337/949) Ğumal. Indeed, he often casts a fresh look at axioms which enjoy almost universal acceptance by the grammarians, and later sources do not fail to acknowledge his critical approach and independent reasoning. For example, Fayrūzābādī (d. 817/1415) refers to him as ṣāḥ ib al-iḫtirāʿāt wa-l-istinbāṭāt (lit. originator of innovations and elucidations),235 and Mālaqī (d. 702/1302) notes that some of his arguments are incompatible with fundamental notions (uṣūl) of the grammarians and that his reasoning led him to violate the criteria (maqāyīs) of Arabic usage.236 A less objective assessment comes from Abū Ḥ ayyān (d. 745/1344), who is reported by Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) to have ridiculed Suhaylī’s frequent deviation from accepted norms 234 Cf. Ibn Maḍāʾ’s statement in connection with ʿamal: qaṣdī fī hād̠ā l-kitāb an aḥ di̠ f min al-naḥw mā yastaġnī l-naḥwiyy ʿanhu (Radd 76). 235 Fayrūzābādī, Bulġa 122. 236 Mālaqī, Raṣf 338–339.

comparison with subsequent authors

291

of grammatical study and to have described his grammatical views as eccentric (kāna šād̠d̠ al-manāziʿ fī l-naḥw).237 In this section, we shall briefly examine Suhaylī’s innovative approach to the theory of ʿamal from the perspective of its relationship with maʿnā, and then demonstrate his closeness to Ğurğānī in highlighting the importance of maʿnā in other issues as well.238 Reference was made earlier to the preponderance in the tradition of lafẓī ʿawāmil over maʿnawī ones.239 Apart from a few maʿnawī ʿawāmil which were individually proposed by some grammarians (see below), it is generally agreed that out of the hundred or so ʿawāmil which the grammarians identify (cf., for example, Ğurğānī’s al-ʿAwāmil al-miʾa l-naḥ wiyya), ninety-eight are lafẓī and only two are maʿnawī. These two are specified as the ʿāmil which causes the mubtadaʾ (i.e. subject of a nominal sentence) to be in the nominative, and the ʿāmil which causes the muḍāriʿ (imperfect) to be in the indicative. Even these two were interpreted by some as non-maʿnawī.240 Furthermore, the Kufan view that the mubtadaʾ and ḫ abar (predicate) cause each other to be in the nominative241 is tantamount to ascribing the nominative case of the mubtadaʾ to a lafẓī ʿāmil. The importance of Suhaylī’s views on ʿamal and ʿawāmil is that they amount, as far as we know, to the only alternative theory to the traditional one. In essence, it is a theory in which lafẓ and maʿnā complement each other in the process of iʿmāl, i.e. initiation of ʿamal. Although the elements of this theory are not systematically presented by Suhaylī in his Natāʾiğ (due to the nature of the work itself which does not exhaust the various issues of syntax and morphology included in “standard” works), it is possible to reconstruct a fairly complete picture of it. The components of the theory may be examined from two perspectives, namely, the maʿnawī ʿawāmil which it identifies and the role of maʿnā in determining the ʿamal of the three parts of speech.242

Suyūtị̄ , Ašbāh III, 11. For a detailed discussion of the various points raised in this section, cf. Baalbaki (1999b: 23–58). 239 Cf. above, 90. 240 For example, Kisāʾī is reported to have ascribed the indicative to a lafẓī ʿāmil, namely the prefixed “letters” or prefixes (ḥ urūf al-muḍāraʿa) of the imperfect (cf. Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār 28 and Inṣāf II, 551; Suyūṭī, Hamʿ I, 164 and Ašbāh I, 243). 241 Cf. Farrāʾ, Maʿānī I, 195; Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf I, 44–45; Suyūṭī, Hamʿ I, 94; Zabīdī, Iʾtilāf 30. 242 Cf. Baalbaki (1999b: 29–45). 237 238

292

chapter four

Suhaylī is probably the only grammarian who recognizes considerably more maʿnawī ʿawāmil than the traditional theory does, although to a few other grammarians are ascribed one or two such ʿawāmil other than those of the mubtadaʾ and the muḍāriʿ. In this respect, Suyūṭī ascribes to Farrāʾ (d. 207/822) and some unspecified Kufans the ʿāmil which causes the imperfect to be in the subjunctive after wāw, fāʾ or aw (as in lā taʾtīnī fa-tuḥ addit̠anī); to some unspecified Kufans, Ḫ alaf al-Aḥmar (d. 180/796) and Hišām (i.e. al-Ḍ arīr; d. 209/824) the ʿāmil which causes the subject of a verb to be in the nominative; to Ḫ alaf al-Aḥmar the ʿāmil which causes the direct object to be in the accusative; and to Aḫfaš (d. 215/830) the ʿāmil due to which words in apposition have the same case-endings as the words they modify.243 These four maʿnawī ʿawāmil are obviously the result of solitary interpretations, whereas the ʿawāmil which Suhaylī recognizes as maʿnawī are the result of a more comprehensive approach to the role of maʿnā in the justification of the formal aspects of the utterance. In addition to the ʿāmil of the mubtadaʾ and the muḍāriʿ,244 Suhaylī assigns a maʿnawī ʿāmil for several other items, as the context of his discussion implies or as he explicitly states. The most obvious cases are those of (1) the fāʿil (subject of a verb; agent), whose ʿāmil he determines to be the verb (i.e. a lafẓī ʿāmil) but whose very name (i.e. the technical term fāʿil), he alternatively argues, clearly indicates that the nominative is a reflection of its status as an agent (irtafaʿa li-annahu ʿibāra ʿan fāʿil);245 (2) the maf ʿūl bihi (direct object), whose ʿāmil is also the verb, but which may alternatively be its own status as a direct object (intaṣaba li-annahu ʿibāra ʿan maf ʿūl bihi);246 (3) the maf ʿūl muṭlaq (absolute object), whose ʿāmil, in constructions such as ḍarabtu ḍarban, which do not indicate a circumstantial accusative (ḥ āl), is not the formal aspect of the verb (i.e. its lafẓ), but the meaning which the verb faʿala implies;247 (4) the maf ʿūl li-ağlihi (causative object), whose ʿāmil he unequivocally denies to be the lafẓ of the verb ( fa-innahu lam yaʿmal fīhi bi-lafẓihi ʿindī) but identifies as the elided verb, which, according to him, elicits the uttered verb and indicates a meaning related to feeling, desire, thought, etc.;248 (5) the

243 244 245 246 247 248

Suyūtị̄ , Ašbāh I, 244–245. Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ 78, 406–407, 437. Ibid., 63; cf. 233, 387. Ibid., loc. cit. Ibid., 356–359. Ibid., 395.

comparison with subsequent authors

293

ḥ āl (circumstantial accusative), whose ʿāmil in constructions which do not include a verb or a verbal derivative, as in hād̠ā Zaydun qāʾiman, is said to be the meaning of the verb unẓur, that is, a ʿāmil which he describes as maʿnawī but which was elided because it is implied in the context (wa-uḍmira li-dalālat al-ḥ al ʿalayhi);249 (6) the naʿt (adjective), whose ʿāmil—which is described as maʿnawī—is the oneness in meaning between the adjective and the noun it modifies (kawnuhu fī maʿnā l-ism al-manʿūt);250 and (7) the maʿṭūf (coupled word), whose ʿāmil—as Suhaylī’s comparison between it and the ʿāmil of the naʿt suggests—is the meaning of the elided verb which follows the conjunction.251 An eighth maʿnawī ʿāmil, but of more general applicability than the other seven, is what Suhaylī, after his teacher, Ibn al-Ṭarāwa (d. 528/1134), calls qaṣd. As Suyūtị̄ (d. 911/1505) observes, this maʿnawī ʿāmil is not well known (lam yuʿhad) among the ʿawāmil which cause the accusative.252 According to Suhaylī, a noun which is in the accusative due to qaṣd—and is thus called maqṣūd ilayhi (intended)—is usually free from any association with zamān (tense) or ḥ āl al-ḥ adat̠ (aspect).253 Infinitives such as subḥ āna, wayla and wayḥ a are included in this category. But Suhaylī seems to have expanded the notion of qaṣd to apply to every noun that is intended in its own right and is free from predication (maqṣūd ilā d̠ikrihi muğarradan ʿan al-iḫbār ʿanhu).254 Based on this broad definition, he assigns qaṣd as the maʿnawī ʿāmil for the vocative, the independent accusative pronoun iyyāka (as in iyyāka naʿbudu; “Thee do we worship”; Q 1: 5), and the accusative noun followed by a transitive verb to which a direct object is suffixed (as in Zaydan ḍarabtuhu),255 as opposed to the grammatical consensus that the ʿāmil in each of these cases is lafẓī (i.e. the verb unādī in the first, the verb that follows iyyāka in the second, and the elided ḍarabtu in the third). The most far-reaching among Suhaylī’s meaning-based proposals, however, has to do with the interpretation of ʿamal as it applies to the

249 Ibid., 230; cf. Suhaylī, Amālī 53–54 where he identifies the ʿāmil which causes the accusative in ğad̠aʿan in the construction yā laytanī fīhā ğad̠aʿan as maʿnā l-istiqrār (a reference to the verb istaqarra which the grammarians restore to elucidate the preposition, hence yā laytanī mustaqirran fīhā ğad̠aʿan). 250 Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ 231; cf. 249. 251 Ibid., 249. 252 Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 171. 253 Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ 70–71. 254 Ibid., 77. 255 Ibid., 77, 70, 71 respectively.

294

chapter four

three parts of speech, i.e. noun (ism), verb ( fiʿl) and particle (ḥ arf ).256 He proposes an analysis which replaces the grammarians’ formal criteria by maʿnā in explaining the link between the parts of speech and ʿamal. According to the traditional theory to which the vast majority of the grammarians adhere, the verb is the category most deserving of ʿamal, and thus no justification is required for a verb which causes ʿamal. On the other hand, reasons should be supplied for the ʿamal caused by nouns and particles because the norm in these two categories is not to cause ʿamal.257 Among the formal aspects of the traditional theory in this respect is the perceived similarity of nouns to verbs (cited as the reason of the ʿamal of nouns) and the principle of iḫtiṣāṣ (specialization) according to which particles can cause ʿamal if they “specialize” in either verbs or nouns.258 These axioms are not adopted by Suhaylī, who, instead, argues that the ʿamal which each part of speech causes is directly linked to the nature of the maʿnā which it expresses. He advances the view that if a part of speech signifies meaning in itself ( fī nafsihi; ʿalā l-ḥ aqīqa), then it must not cause ʿamal, but if it signifies meaning in another element (dalla ʿalā maʿnā fī ġayrihi), then it has to cause ʿamal.259 His use of wağaba (must) in expressions such as wağaba an yakūn ʿāmilan and wağaba allā yakūn ʿāmilan indicates the mandatory nature of the principle which links maʿnā to ʿamal and supports his contention that lafẓ is but subservient to maʿnā (al-alfāẓ tābiʿa li-l-maʿānī).260 Based on the distinction between what signifies meaning in itself and what signifies it in another element, Suhaylī argues that the noun should not cause ʿamal because it signifies meaning in itself and not in any other part of the utterance. Accordingly, he identifies the ʿāmil which causes the second element of the construct chain to be in the genitive as iḍāfa (annexion) itself,261 unlike most grammarians who identify it as the first element of the chain, hence a lafẓī ʿāmil.262 Also unlike the grammarians’ consensus that the verb signifies meaning in itself, Suhaylī determines that the meaning of the verb resides in another word,

256 257 258 259 260 261 262

Cf. Baalbaki (2002–2003: 75–76). Suyūtị̄ , Ašbāḥ I, 241. Cf. above, 71, 94. Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ 68, 74. Ibid., 74. Suhaylī, Amālī 20. Kitāb I, 419; cf. the different views on this matter in Suyūṭī, Hamʿ II, 46.

comparison with subsequent authors

295

namely, the subject, and argues that it should cause ʿamal in the noun in order for its impact (at̠ar) on the maʿnā of the noun to be matched by a similar impact on lafẓ.263 As far as the particle is concerned, he subscribes to the traditional view that it signifies meaning in another word (cf. his expression al-ḥ arf mā dalla ʿalā maʿnā fī ġayrihi),264 but, whereas the grammarians do not utilize this semantic characteristic of the particle in justifying its ʿamal, he makes it the central issue in his argument that ʿamal is necessarily linked to the meaning of the ʿāmil. Suhaylī introduces here the notion of tašabbut̠ (adherence) which refers to the semantic relationship between the ʿāmil and its maʿmūl. Thus, particles as well as verbs (whose meaning, according to him, also resides in other words) exhibit tašabbut̠ with respect to the meaning of the words they govern, whereas nouns do not. Since lafẓ is a function of maʿnā, it follows that verbs and particles cause ʿamal but nouns do not. More specifically, in the case of particles, Suhaylī provides complex and far-fetched arguments to explain why certain particles cause ʿamal while others do not. His message, however, is clearly the need to find a uniform explanation for the ʿamal, or lack thereof, of all three parts of speech. Obviously, the only criterion he uniformly applies to them is that of maʿnā, and, accordingly, his theory of ʿamal is unique in the tradition. Suhaylī’s focus on maʿnā may be viewed, in a broader context, as a reaction against the predominance in post-Sībawayhi grammar of formal considerations over meaning. Irrespective of his differences with Sībawayhi concerning the theory of ʿamal, his views represent one of the rare attempts at redressing the imbalance between lafẓ and maʿnā and are thus necessarily closer in aim to Sībawayhi’s general approach than to that of most other grammarians. In fact some of Suhaylī’s views concerning ʿamal may be traced to Sībawayhi himself. For example, his restoration of unẓur in constructions in which the circumstantial accusative is not preceded by a verb, as in wa-hād̠ā baʿlī šayḫ an (“And my husband here is an old man”; Q 11: 72), is most probably inspired by Sībawayhi’s explanation of hād̠ā ʿAbdullāhi munṭaliqan as equivalent in meaning to unẓur ilayhi munṭaliqan.265 Suhaylī argues that it is the maʿnā of unẓur, and not its lafẓ, which governs the accusative in such Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ 68, 74. Ibid., 74; cf. Zağğāğī, Ğumal 17 and Ῑḍāḥ 45; Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VIII, 2; Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ I, 4; cf. Guillaume (1988: 28, 32). 265 Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ 230; cf. Kitāb II, 78; Šantamarī, Nukat I, 481–482. 263 264

296

chapter four

cases, but it should also be remembered that Sībawayhi’s use of unẓur ilayhi munṭaliqan is meant to be a tamt̠īl (representation, approximation) and is not intended to propose a ʿāmil since he identifies the ʿāmil in this case to be hād̠ā. Apart from comparison with Sībawayhi, Suhaylī’s contribution within the context of those attempts at focusing on maʿnā becomes more relevant when he is compared with Ğurğānī, since both authors straddle the disciplines of naḥw and balāġa and try to restore to maʿnā its central role in syntactical analysis. Although he does not mention Ğurğānī by name, several of Suhaylī’s views are ascribable to Ğurğānī’s influence, especially as they relate to the theory of naẓm. In particular, Suhaylī’s previously cited assertion that uttered elements are dependent on, or subsidiary to, meaning (al-alfāẓ tābiʿa li-l-maʿānī) echoes a similar conviction which Ğurğānī often expresses in defending his views on naẓm (e.g. al-lafẓ tabaʿ li-l-maʿnā fī l-naẓm; al-alfāẓ hiya l-tābiʿa wa-l-maʿānī hiya l-matbūʿa).266 Furthermore, Suhaylī’s belief that word order, as a formal phenomenon, reflects the order in which meanings are arranged in the mind of the speaker, and his identification of semantic reasons which dictate the word order of the utterance,267 are perfectly in line with Ğurğānī’s thesis that naẓm should reflect syntactical meanings (maʿānī l-naḥw) and indeed reminiscent of his view that faṣāḥ a (eloquence) resides in maʿnā and not in lafẓ.268 Suhaylī is much closer to Ğurğānī than to the grammarians in his discussion of word-order, and he certainly does not restrict his comments to their notion of ʿināya and ihtimām,269 which Ğurğānī attacks as insufficient for understanding taqdīm and taʾḫ īr. Most interesting is his use of the expression asrār al-naẓm,270 which immediately brings to mind Ğurğānī’s title Asrār al-balāġa as well as the recurrent use of asrār in his Dalāʾil.271 To conclude, the comparison between Suhaylī’s discussion of innamā and that of Ğurğānī’s (which was alluded to in “b” above) shows the extent

Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil, 45, 285. These reasons are zamān (chronological order), ṭabʿ (nature of the items involved), rutba (rank), sabab (relationship, cause), and faḍl wa-kamāl (merit, perfection); cf. Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ 267–275. 268 Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil 311–313. 269 Cf. Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ 311 and 330 where the notion of ʿināya and ihtimām is cited along with other reasons to justify taqdīm and taʾḫīr. 270 Ibid., 300, 309, 312; cf. 35, 67, 81, 152, 197, 221, 226 etc. where sirr and asrār are used in a more general sense. See also Suhaylī, Amālī, 31, 34, 40, 41, 44, 49, 124 etc. 271 Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil 6, 63, 154, 170 etc. 266 267

comparison with subsequent authors

297

to which Suhaylī is influenced by the meaning-based approach of his predecessor. In contrast to the grammarians who generally examine the formal characteristics of that particle, Suhaylī is in close proximity to Ğurğānī, who focuses on the meanings associated with the use of innamā. More specifically, Suhaylī’s reference to the meanings of nafy (negation) and it̠bāt (affirmation) corresponds to Ğurğānī’s use of nafy and īğāb with regards to innamā,272 and his analysis of the verse innamā yaḫ šā l-Lāha min ʿibādihi l-ʿulamāʾu (“Those truly fear God, among his servants, who have knowledge”; Q 35: 28) is strikingly similar to Ğurğānī’s.273 In spite of the ingenious attempts of Ibn Ğinnī, Ğurğānī and Suhaylī to assert the importance of maʿnā in syntactical analysis and to examine its influence on the formal aspects of the utterance, they had but little impact on later grammarians, and their efforts generally remained marginal within the overall grammatical tradition. Of course, Ğurğānī’s influence on the field of balāġa is evident, but even that field could not escape standardization and pedantic formulae which are so obvious in later works such as Sakkākī’s (d. 626/1229) Miftāḥ and Qazwīnī’s (d. 738/1338) Talḫīṣ and Ῑḍāḥ . Unfortunately for students of Arabic, both in earlier times and at present, the study of syntax, in its grammatical as well as stylistic sides, had only brief respites from the dominance of formal aspects, and hence Sībawayhi’s delicate balance between form and meaning was never truly regained. d. Ğāḥiẓ (d. 255/869): At the risk of disrupting the chronological order of this section, the introduction of Ğāḥiẓ at this point is more appropriate because, unlike Ibn Ğinnī, Ğurğānī and Suhaylī, his contribution to the grammatical tradition is minimal, not to mention that he deviated from some of the most essential axioms of the grammarians. Yet Ğāḥiẓ is interesting from two perspectives, the more immediate of which concerns post-Sībawayhi attempts to revive the role of maʿnā in linguistic study, while the other concerns the previously discussed issue of the pedagogical implications of the grammarians’ methods of analysis.274 Ğāḥ iẓ is definitely no stranger to the grammatical and philological traditions. Among his teachers are prominent grammarians and Ibid., 258; Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ 175–176. Ibid., 261; Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ 175. 274 For a more detailed discussion of Ğāḥiẓ’s place in the philological tradition (i.e. the study of luġa as opposed to naḥw), cf. Baalbaki (forthcoming c). 272 273

298

chapter four

philologists such as Abū ʿUbayda (d. 209/824), Abū Zayd al-Anṣārī (d. 215/830), Aḫfaš (d. 215/830), and Aṣmaʿī (d. 216/831).275 His nephew, Yamūt b. al-Muzarriʿ (d. 304/916), who was one of his students, is referred to in several sources as naḥwī.276 Moreover, Ğāḥiẓ is the first author, as far as we know, to refer—albeit indirectly—to the masʾala zunbūriyya, an early grammatical debate between Sībawayhi and Kisāʾī (d. 189/805).277 But Ğāḥiẓ is certainly not a naḥwī in the traditional sense of the term, and the sources correctly do not identify his contribution with naḥw. What is puzzling, however, is that most of the extant biographical sources devoted to grammarians and philologists do not even consider him a luġawī (philologist, lexicographer) in spite of his keen insight into philological matters and his pioneering study of several philological subjects upon which earlier authors, such as Ḫ alīl (d. 175/791) and Sībawayhi, did not touch. Most of these biographical sources—e.g. Abū l-Ṭayyib’s (d. 351/962) Marātib, Sīrāfī’s (d. 368/979) Aḫbār, Zubaydī’s (d. 379/989) Ṭabaqāt, Tanūḫī’s (d. 442/1050) Tārīḫ , Qiftị̄ ’s (d. 646/1248) Inbāh, and Fayrūzābādī’s (d. 817/1415) Bulġa—do not include an entry on him. In fact, only three of the biographical sources devoted to grammarians and philologists include such an entry. The earliest two of these sources, Marzubānī’s (d. 384/994) Muqtabas, as preserved in Yuġmūrī’s (d. 673/1274) abridgment, and Ibn al-Anbārī’s (d. 577/1181) Nuzha, include only anecdotal material about him without any mention of his contribution to philology,278 whereas the third source, Suyūt ̣ī’s (d. 911/1505) Buġya, has no more than three lines under the Ğāḥiẓ entry.279 It is also significant that the biography of Ğāḥiẓ is placed in Ibn al-Nadīm’s (d. 380/990) Fihrist in the section which deals with mutakallimūn (scholastic theologians) and not in the section he devotes to the naḥwiyyūn and luġawiyyūn. Other than the biographical sources, the grammatical and philological works of Ğāḥiẓ’s contemporaries, and those of later authors as well, hardly mention any of his views related to linguistic study. There is, for example, not a single reference to him in such major works of the third/ninth and fourth/tenth century as Ibn al-Sikkīt’s (d. 244/858)

Yāqūt, Muʿğam V, 2101; cf. Abū l-Ṭayyib, Marātib 118. Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt 215; Yāqūt, Muʿğam VI, 2845; Qifṭī, Inbāh IV, 80; Suyūṭī, Buġya II, 353. 277 Ğāḥiẓ, Ḥ ayawān VII, 7; cf. Talmon (2003: 29, n. 1). 278 Yaġmūrī, Nūr 230–231; Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha 148–151. 279 Suyūtị̄ , Buġya II, 228. 275 276

comparison with subsequent authors

299

Iṣlāḥ , Mubarrad’s (d. 285/898) Muqtaḍab, T̠aʿlab’s (d. 291/904) Mağālis and Faṣīḥ , Ibn al-Sarrāğ’s (d. 316/929) Uṣūl, and Zağğāğī’s (d. 337/949) Ğumal. Similarly, later grammarians, notably the various Alfiyya commentators and authors of lengthy works such as Ibn Yaʿīš (d. 643/1245) in his Šarḥ al-Mufaṣsạ l, do not report any of his views or refer to any of his books or risālas. In Ḫ izāna, an encyclopedic work replete with the views of the grammarians, particularly with regard to poetic šawāhid, Baġdādī (d. 1093/1683) makes about fifty references to Ğāḥiẓ,280 three of which have to do with meanings of words, four are of a biographical nature, and the rest relate to anecdotes and poetry narration (riwāya), except for one reference to a syntactical issue.281 The latter reference, however, is included by Baġdādī to report the widespread criticism by the grammarians of Ğāḥiẓ’s alleged inability to comprehend their explanation of Aʿšā’s line fa-lasta bi-l-akt̠ari minhum ḥ aṣan/wa-innamā l-ʿizzatu li-l-kāt̠iri (“You are not more copious [lit. richer in pebbles] than they are—Might belongs but to him who is more copious”). According to Ibn Ğinnī (d. 392/1002), Ğāḥiẓ cites Aʿšā’s line—in which al-akt̠ar is followed by min—to dismiss the claim of the grammarians that the comparative pattern afʿal, the feminine of which is fuʿlā, cannot be preceded by the definite article al- and followed, at the same time, by min; that is, one could say al-afḍalu or afḍalu minka, but not *al-afḍalu minka.282 Ibn Ğinnī courteously notes that had Ğāḥiẓ known that min in Aʿšā’s line is not the comparative min which appears in phrases like aḥ sanu minka and akramu minka, but that it serves as a circumstantial accusative (ḥ āl) whose subject is the pronominal suffix in lasta, he would have abandoned his view pertaining to Aʿšā’s line. The taqdīr, or underlying structure, which Ibn Ğinnī proposes for that line, is lasta min baynihim bi-l-akt̠ari ḥ aṣan (in which case, the first hemistich may be translated as follows: “Amongst them, you are not the most copious”). Even more critical of Ğāḥiẓ than Ibn Ğinnī are grammarians who accuse him of not going beyond the apparent (ẓāhir) syntactical structure of

280 Cf. Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna (indices) XIII, 289 and the references it includes to other parts of the indices. 281 Ibid., VIII, 253–257. 282 Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 185; III, 234. Ibn Ğinnī’s view is also quoted by Baġdādī in Ḫ izāna VIII, 253–254.

300

chapter four

Aʿšā’s words,283 or refer to his wahm (here error) and failure to grasp the correct meaning of the construction.284 Just as the only mention of Ğāḥ iẓ by Baġdādī with respect to a syntactical issue involves criticism of his views, the only reference to him concerning a morphological issue out of twenty-eight references in Ibn Manẓūr’s (d. 711/1311) Lisān285 includes likewise a refutation of his view on the etymology of the word dawwiyya (desert). According to Ibn Barrī (d. 582/1187), as Ibn Manẓūr reports, Ğāḥiẓ seems to have missed the true function of the yāʾ in dawwiyya, which the grammarians determine to be otiose (zāʾida; i.e. indicating a relative noun or a gentilic form) and hence is not part of the root (wa-ḥ aqīqat hād̠ihi l-yāʾ ʿinda l-naḥwiyyīna annahā zāʾida . . . fa-lā ʿtibāra lahā). Consequently, Ğāḥiẓ’s etymology of dawwiyya is described by Ibn Barrī as wrong because its premises are faulty. In addition to the Lisān, this criticism of Ğāḥiẓ is reported in several other lexicons.286 The fact that Ğāḥiẓ discussed several philological issues which the grammarians totally ignored (see below) is probably not the reason for his exclusion from the biographical sources devoted to grammarians and philologists, as well as from grammatical works, since his views on these issues are not aimed at the grammatical theory per se and could thus have been considered complementary to the issues which earlier grammarians had examined. The true reasons for this exclusion should be sought in the challenge which several of his views posed to some of the most fundamental principles of grammatical study, particularly his views on case-endings (iʿrāb), solecism (laḥ n), and ʿilla, in addition to his negative assessment of the grammarians’ overall pedagogical approach. Ğāḥiẓ’s position on iʿrāb contradicts the grammarians’ conviction that it is the backbone of correct speech. He believes that iʿrāb is appropriate only for Bedouin speech, which he refers to as kalām al-Aʿrāb, but not for the speech of the muwalladūn (post-classical speakers) and the

Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ VI, 103; cf. ʿAynī, Maqāṣid IV, 40. Ibn Hišām, Muġnī II, 572; cf. ʿAynī, Maqāṣid IV, 39. 285 About half of these references involve terminology related to animals, including layt̠, faʾra, yāmūr, naqqāz, ṭabbūʿ, yarāʿa, šalaqa, ḍabb, etc., whereas the other half is of an anecdotal nature; cf. the indices of Abū l-Hayğāʾ & ʿAmāyira (1987: 153–154, 432). 286 Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān (DWY); Ğawharī, Ṣaḥ āḥ (DWY); cf. Ğāḥiẓ, Ḥ ayawān VI, 248. For details of this controversy and related editorial problems pertaining to the texts of Ḥ ayawān and Lisān in this matter, cf. Baalbaki (forthcoming c). 283 284

comparison with subsequent authors

301

ʿawāmm or baladiyyūn (commoners).287 In reporting anecdotes of the Aʿrāb, he argues, iʿrāb and proper articulation points (maḫ āriğ alfāẓihā) should be fully observed and laḥ n ought to be avoided. In contrast, the introduction of iʿrāb to the anecdotes of the muwalladūn and ʿawāmm contradicts the funny (muḍḥ ik) and amusing (mulhī) nature of these anecdotes. In fact, Ğāḥ iẓ’s verbatim accounts of linguistic material which lacks iʿrāb are not restricted to the utterances of the ʿawāmm, but include quotations from eminent people such as al-Naẓzạ̄ m al-Muʿtazilī (d. 231/845).288 Ğāḥiẓ’s criticism of the grammarians with regards to iʿrāb, however, has to do with poetry primarily. He accuses them of being interested in poetry merely from the perspective of iʿrāb (wa-lam ara ġāyat al-naḥwiyyīna illā kull šiʿr fīhi iʿrāb).289 In other words, the grammarians’ interest, according to Ğāḥiẓ, is in the purely formal side of poetry, which, after all, is the largest component of their corpus. His ridicule of ʿῙsā b. ʿUmar (d. 149/766)—a prominent grammarian who was a teacher of both Ḫ alīl and Sībawayhi—reflects his dissatisfaction with the grammarians’ preoccupation with the formal aspects of the utterance. Ğāḥiẓ reports, on the authority of Aṣmaʿī (d. 216/831), that ʿῙsā and an adversary of his sought the legal verdict of Bilāl b. Abī Burda (d. 126/744) on a certain matter, but when that adversary began to speak without using case-endings, ʿῙsā became more concerned about his adversary’s lack of respect to proper rules of iʿrāb than about his own right in the legal affair under consideration!290 As far as laḥ n (solecism) is concerned, Ğāḥ iẓ uses the term not only to refer to the omission of case-endings in speech, but also to inappropriate usage in the realm of semantics (e.g. iftaḥ ū suyūfakum, instead of sullū suyūfakum “unsheathe your swords”),291 phonology

287 Ğāḥiẓ, Bayān I, 145–146 (cf. I, 137 for the term ʿawāmm) and Ḥ ayawān I, 282; III, 39. 288 For al-Naẓzạ̄ m, cf. Ğāḥiẓ, Ḥ ayawān I, 281–282; cf. also Ḫ alīl (2000: 179–180) for a list of twenty quotations which Ğāḥiẓ cites verbatim in his Buḫ alāʾ and which do not conform to the norms of fuṣḥ ā. 289 Ğāḥiẓ, Bayān IV, 24; cf. above, 44. 290 Ibid., II, 218. Similar criticism of a grammarian who is so preoccupied with iʿrāb that he ignores maʿnā is reported by Abū l-Ṭayyib (Marātib 38) as part of a dialogue between ʿAmr b. ʿUbayd (d. 144/761) and Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ (d. 154/770). In response to Abū ʿAmr’s citing of a line of poetry in support of his Murğiʾite view, ʿAmr accuses him of being distracted from truth by his preoccupation with the formal aspect of the cited line, rather than with its meaning (Abā ʿAmr, šağalaka l-iʿrāb ʿan al-ṣawāb). 291 Ibid., II, 210.

302

chapter four

(e.g. Ḍ amyāʾ, instead of Ẓ amyāʾ, proper noun),292 and morphology (e.g. ʿaṣātī, instead of ʿaṣāya “my rod”).293 Yet there is strong evidence that, in certain contexts, Ğāḥiẓ regards laḥ n as admissible, or even desirable, unlike the grammarians, who unanimously disapprove of any linguistic usage which involves laḥn. In particular, he determines that laḥn is more easily acceptable (aysar) if it occurs in the speech of charming maids or pretty young women (al-ğawārī l-ẓirāf . . . al-šawābb al-milāḥ ).294 In this respect, he cites Mālik b. Aṣmāʾ’s line manṭiqun ṣāʾibun wa-talḥ anu aḥyā/nan wa-aḥ lā l-ḥ adīt̠i mā kāna laḥ nā (“[She has] correct speech, but she sometimes commits laḥ n, and the sweetest utterance is the one with laḥn”). He also argues that laḥn may well be a natural phenomenon in certain speech communities (ʿalā sağiyyat sukkān al-balad), as in the speech of the commoners (ʿawāmm) in Medina, who had no training in naḥw. Hence, according to him, laḥ n deserves study in its own right and can even be a legitimate phenomenon. This is in contrast with the grammarians, who consider laḥ n the antithesis of their grammatical teaching, particularly because it is generally assumed to be the reason for the emergence of grammatical activity in the first/seventh and second/ eighth centuries. Other than his views on iʿrāb and laḥ n, Ğāḥ iẓ, according to Ibn Ğinnī, seems to have challenged the ʿilal (causes) which the grammarians propose in interpreting attested usage. Although Ibn Ğinnī cites only one example with regard to Ğāḥiẓ’s position in this matter, his inclusion of that example under the chapter entitled bāb fī l-radd ʿalā man iʿtaqada fasād ʿilal al-naḥwiyyīna li-ḍaʿfihi huwa fī nafsihi ʿan iḥ kām al-ʿilla (“Refutation of the one who believes that the grammatical causes are corrupt, due to his own failure to master these causes”)295 indicates the seriousness of the charge made by Ğāḥiẓ against the grammarians, particularly because of the central role they assign to ʿilla in their grammatical theory. In fact, Ğāḥiẓ is the only scholar to whom Ibn Ğinnī refers by name in this chapter, all the other references being impersonal, as in expressions such as qawluhum (their view), hād̠ihi l-ṭāʾifa (this group [of scholars]), etc. The example which Ibn Ğinnī cites is the previously quoted line fa-lasta bi-l-akt̠ari minhum ḥ aṣan etc. which he adduces as proof of the grammarians’ “mistaken” rule that 292 293 294 295

Ibid., II, 211; cf. I, 70 ff. Ibid., II, 219. Ibid., I, 146. Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ I, 184.

comparison with subsequent authors

303

comparative af ʿal, whose feminine is fuʿlā, may either be preceded by al- or followed by min, but not both. Ibn Ğinnī, however, elucidates the ʿilla upon which the grammarians’ view rests, namely, the semantic incompatibility of the definite article, which indicates generalization, with min, which indicates specification ( fa-qad istawʿabat al-lām min al-taʿrīf akt̠ar mimmā tufīduhu min min al-taḫ sị̄ ṣ).296 By not subscribing to the grammarians’ interpretation of Aʿšā’s line, Ğāḥiẓ effectively rejects the validity of their proposing a ʿilla to justify usage which, in his view, is permissible and need not to be interpreted beyond its face value. It is not clear, however, whether Ğāḥiẓ is merely opposed to the grammarians’ views on constructions of the type al-afʿalu minka or, more fundamentally, to the very notion of taʿlīl. Some of Ğāḥiẓ’s clearest and harshest views on the grammarians have to do with their pedagogical shortcomings. In an encounter with his Basran compatriot, Aḫfaš (d. 215/830), which he himself reports, Ğāḥiẓ wonders why most of Aḫfaš’s books are incomprehensible (lā nafham akt̠arahā) and why he gives precedence to what is complex (ʿawīṣ) over what is comprehensible (mafhūm).297 Irrespective of Ğāḥiẓ’s dialogue with Aḫfaš and the latter’s response in which he defends his deliberate and profitable method of authorship which causes people to seek his expertise, Ğāḥiẓ’s observations touch on a subject he raises in his Kitāb al-Mutaʿallimīn, namely, the uselessness of ʿawīṣ al-naḥw (complex grammar)—which he believes is as useless as Indian arithmetic, geometry, and complex problems of surveying—and its unsuitability for teaching students.298 In the eighth chapter of this risāla, Ğāḥiẓ proclaims that the pupil should be taught enough grammar to guard him against solecism and enable him to draft a letter, recite verse, or give a description of a certain thing. Anything more, he argues, may impede his acquirement of more valuable skills, such as correct citation of a proverb, an illustrative example (šāhid), or an accepted tradition. The implied distinction between what is necessary and what is unnecessary or superfluous in grammar is reminiscent of the dispute—reported by Ğāḥ iẓ himself—between Ḫ alīl and the Basran Murğiʾite theologian

296

Ibid., III, 234. Ğāḥiẓ, Ḥ ayawān I, 91–92. In contrast, Ğāḥiẓ praises Kisāʾī for having authored comprehensible and well-elucidated works (kutub mafhūma ḥ asanat al-šarḥ ); cf. Qiftị̄ , Inbāh II, 271–272. 298 Ğāḥiẓ, Mutaʿallimīn 38–39. 297

304

chapter four

(mutakallim), Abū Šamir,299 who responded to Ḫ alīl’s assertion that no one learns the necessary in grammar until he learns the unnecessary (lā yaṣil aḥ ad min ʿilm al-naḥw ilā mā yaḥtāğ ilayhi ḥ attā yataʿallam mā lā yaḥtāğ ilayhi) by arguing as follows: “If what is necessary is conditional upon what is unnecessary, then the latter surely becomes necessary”.300 That Ḫ alīl’s interlocutor in some sources is identified as Abū l-Hud̠ayl al-ʿAllāf (d. 235/850) or al-Naẓzạ̄ m al-Muʿtazilī (d. 231/845)—note, however, that they both died more than half a century after Ḫ alīl’s death in 175/791)—suggests that Ğāḥiẓ’s criticism of the grammarians may well be part of a larger Muʿtazilite tradition. For his part, Ğāḥiẓ has highlighted the practical dimension of an otherwise purely logical dispute by asserting that the study of grammar should be determined by the user’s requirements, in accordance with the conviction that the essentials and the trivia in grammar are indeed separable at the pedagogical level. In addition to his differences with the grammarians, Ğāḥ iẓ introduced to philological study novel subjects of inquiry. Among these in the realm of phonetics and articulation is his study of speech defects, particularly lisping (lut̠ġa),301 his discussion of how deformities in teeth and tongue affect the production of sounds,302 and his identification of the different accents (lukna) which phonetically characterize social and ethnic groups.303 Similarly novel is his study of the relationship between language and society in areas such as social class and profession,304 the role of one’s ethnic background in his speech,305 the mutual influence between native and regional dialects,306 and the elements which characterize usage by native speakers.307 More relevant to our discussion of post-Sībawayhi attempts to expand the role of maʿnā in linguistic analysis, however, is the concept of bayān which Ğāḥ iẓ employs to highlight the centrality of maʿnā in the study of the speech of the Arabs.

299

On Abū Šamir, cf. van Ess (1992: 174–180); Carter (1998: 29 and 41, n. 55). Ğāḥiẓ, Ḥ ayawān I, 37–38; cf. Ibn Abī ʿAwn, Ağwiba 85; Ibn ʿAbd Rabbihi, ʿIqd III, 25–26; Iṣfahānī, Tanbīh 121; Ibn Abd al-Barr, Bahğa I, 67. 301 Ğāḥiẓ, Bayān I, 15 ff., 34 ff.; cf. Būšīḫī (1982) under the entries ḥ ubsa, ḥ ukla, ʿağz and ʿuğma. 302 Ibid., I, 57 ff., 71 ff. 303 Ibid., I, 40, 69, 71; II, 213. 304 Ibid., I, 144 ff.; Ğāḥiẓ, Ṣināʿāt 379–393 and Ḥ ayawān III, 368; cf. Ḫ alīl (2000: 169 ff.). 305 Ğāḥiẓ, Bayān I, 40, 69 ff., 384. 306 Ibid., I, 18–20. 307 Ibid., I, 145–146, 162; II, 7. 300

comparison with subsequent authors

305

As a collective term for anything which discloses meaning (ism ğāmiʿ li-kull šayʾ kašafa laka qināʿ al-maʿnā),308 Ğāḥiẓ distinguishes under it between five different types of signification (aṣnāf al-dalālāt), namely, lafẓ (utterance), išāra (gesture), ʿaqd (computation), ḫ aṭt ̣ (writing), and niṣba (posture, in inanimate beings).309 The concept of bayān clearly represents an attempt to surpass the grammarians’ method of studying maʿnā solely through the medium of lafẓ and to identify other elements which contribute to the communication of maʿnā and are thus worthy of investigating. A most interesting concept in this respect is that of išāra, which Ğāḥiẓ introduces to refer to bodily gestures of the hands, head, eyes, eyebrows, shoulders, etc. as well as to gestures which make use of objects such as garments, swords, whips, etc. The importance of išāra is that it goes hand in hand with lafẓ in the communication of meaning (wa-l-išāra wa-l-lafẓ šarīkāni), and, as Ğāḥiẓ argues, were it not for išāra, the minutest details of meaning (maʿnā ḫ āṣṣ al-ḫ āṣs)̣ would not be communicable among interlocutors. Ğāḥiẓ’s choice of title for his book al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn, and his comment that the chapter on bayān should have been placed, had it not been for technical reasons, at the forefront of the book,310 reveal his deep interest in an approach to maʿnā from a wider scope than that of the grammarians’. By proposing that bayān be the focal point of linguistic inquiry and demonstrating that proper study of meaning should not ignore extralinguistic features (such as the context of situation and body semantics), Ğāḥiẓ is at odds with the grammarians’ exclusive focus on lafẓ. His dissatisfaction with the grammarians’ interest in poetry solely from the viewpoint of iʿrāb (i.e. lafẓ) should thus be seen in light of the fact that bayān is not restricted to the aspect of lafẓ but includes all the other elements which contribute to a proper understanding of maʿnā. Ğāḥiẓ’s broad interest in the various factors which collectively constitute bayān remained largely unrecognized by later grammarians. Being relatively close to Sībawayhi in time, Ğāḥiẓ presented views which could have ideally served to expand the role Sībawayhi assigns to meaning in his overall system of syntactical analysis, particularly with regard to the

308 Ibid., I, 76; cf. Soudan (1992: 19–46) for the relationship between balāġa and Ğāḥiẓ’s theory of bayān, and Kouloughli (1985: 51–52) for the interrelatedness between lafẓ and maʿnā according to Ğāḥiẓ. 309 Ibid., I, 76–83; cf. Ğāḥiẓ, Ḥ ayawān I, 35, 44–46. 310 Ibid., I, 76: wa-kāna fī l-ḥ aqq an yakūn hād̠ā l-bāb fī awwal hād̠ā l-kitāb wa-lākinnā aḫ ḫ arnāhu li-baʿḍ al-tadbīr.

306

chapter four

social context of language, with whose impact on meaning both authors were deeply concerned. Grammarians such as Mubarrad (d. 285/898) and T̠aʿlab (d. 291/904), as well as later authors, opted not to go in that direction, and their effort was mostly devoted to the study of the formal aspects of speech. In many ways, however, Ğāḥiẓ was a forerunner of Ğurğānī in proposing ideas conducive to the expansion of the role of meaning in linguistic analysis. Both Ğāḥiẓ and Ğurğānī were largely kept outside the mainstream grammatical tradition. In the case of Ğāḥiẓ, in particular, his criticism of the grammarians seems to have caused them not to cite any of his relevant views in their works, and to have caused most biographers not to recognize his contribution even in the realm of luġa or philological study with which that contribution is closely identified. Sībawayhi’s legacy, as subsequent grammarians perceived it, proved to be too powerful to be challenged without retribution.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Primary sources Abū l-Baqāʾ, Kulliyyāt = Abū l-Baqāʾ Ayyūb b. Mūsā l-Ḥ usaynī, al-Kulliyyāt. Būlāq, 1252 A.H. Abū Firās, Dīwān = Dīwān Abī Firās, riwāyat Abī ʿAbdallāh al-Ḥ usayn Ibn Ḫ ālawayhi. Beirut: Dār Bayrūt & Dār Ṣādir, 1959. Abū Ğaʿfar al-Naḥḥās = Naḥḥās. Abū Ḥ ayyān, Baḥr = At̠īr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Yūsuf Abū Ḥ ayyān al-Ġarnātị̄ al-naḥwī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr al-musammā bi-l-Baḥ r al-muḥ īṭ. 8 vols. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Saʿāda, 1328 A.H. Abū Misḥal, Nawādir = Abū Misḥal ʿAbdallāh b. Ḥ arīš, al-Nawādir. Ed. by ʿIzzat Ḥ asan. Damascus: Mağmaʿ al-Luġa l-ʿArabiyya, 1961. Abū Ṭ āhir, Aḫbār = Abū Ṭāhir ʿAbdalwāḥid b. ʿUmar al-Bazzār, Aḫbār fī l-naḥw. Ed. by Muḥammad Aḥmad al-Dālī. Limassol: al-Ğaffān & al-Ğābī, 1993. Abū l-Ṭayyib, Marātib = Abū l-Ṭayyib ʿAbdalraḥ mān b. ʿAlī al-Luġawī, Marātib al-naḥwiyyīn. Ed. by Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm. 2nd ed. Cairo: Dār Nahḍat Miṣr, 1974. Abū ʿUbayda, Mağāz = Abū ʿUbayda Maʿmar b. al-Muta̠ nnā l-Taymī, Mağāz al-Qurʾān. Ed. by Muḥ ammad Fuʾād Sazgīn [Fuat Sezgin]. 2 vols. Cairo: Muḥ ammad Sāmī Amīn al-Ḫ ānğī, 1954. Abū Zayd, Nawādir = Abū Zayd Saʿīd b. Aws al-Anṣārī, al-Nawādir fī l-luġa. Ed. by Muḥammad ʿAbdalqādir Aḥmad. Beirut: Dār al-Šurūq, 1981. Aḫfaš, Maʿānī = Abū l-Ḥ asan Saʿīd b. Masʿada l-Aḫfaš al-Awsat ̣, Maʿānī l-Qurʾān. Ed. by Fāʾiz Fāris al-Ḥ amad. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Kuwait, 1981. Ᾱlūsī, Ḍ arāʾir = Abū l-Maʿālī Maḥmūd Šukrī l-Ᾱlūsī, al-Ḍ arāʾir wa-mā yasūġ li-l-šāʿir dūna l-nāt̠ir. Cairo: al-Matḅ aʿa l-Salafiyya, 1341 A.H. Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Kāfiya = Raḍī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ḥ asan al-Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ Kāfiyat Ibn al-Ḥ āğib fī l-naḥw. 2 vols. Istanbul, 1310 A.H. Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ al-Šāfiya = Raḍī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ḥ asan al-Astarābād̠ī, Šarḥ Šāfiyat Ibn al-Ḥ āğib. Ed. by Muḥammad Nūr al-Ḥ asan, Muḥammad al-Zafzāf & Muḥammad Muḥyī l-Dīn ʿAbdalḥamīd. 4 vols. Repr. from the Cairo edition, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1982. ʿAynī, Maqāṣid = Abū Muḥammad Maḥmūd b. Aḥmad al-ʿAynī, al-Maqāṣid al-naḥwiyya fī šarḥ šawāhid al-Alfiyya. [in the margin of Baġdādī’s Ḫ izāna, 4 vols. Būlāq, 1299 A.H.] Azharī, Taṣrīḥ = Zayn al-Dīn Ḫ ālid b. ʿAbdallāh al-Azharī, al-Taṣrīḥ ʿalā l-Tawḍīḥ . 2 vols. Cairo: al-Maktaba l-Azhariyya l-Miṣriyya, 1325 A.H. Baġdādī, Ḫ izāna = ʿAbdalqādir b. ʿUmar al-Baġdādī, Ḫ izānat al-adab wa-lubb lubāb lisān al-ʿArab. Ed. by ʿAbdalsalām Muḥammad Hārūn. 13 vols. Cairo: Dār al-Kātib al-ʿArabī, 1967–86. Baġdādī, Tārīḫ = Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Ḫ atị̄ b al-Baġdādī, Tārīḫ Baġdād. 14 vols. Cairo, 1931. Fārisī, Aqsām = Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥ asan b. Aḥmad al-Fārisī, Aqsām al-aḫbār. Ed. by ʿAlī Ğābir al-Manṣūrī. al-Mawrid 7, 3. 201–220, 1978. Fārisī, Īḍāḥ = Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥ asan b. Aḥ mad al-Fārisī, al-Īḍāḥ . Ed. by Kāẓim Baḥ r al-Marğān. Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1996. Fārisī, Šiʿr = Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥ asan b. Aḥ mad al-Fārisī, Kitāb al-Šiʿr aw Šarḥ al-abyāt al-muškilat al-iʿrāb. Ed. by Maḥmūd Muḥammad al-Ṭanāḥī. 2 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Ḫ ānğī, 1988.

308

bibliographical references

Fārisī, Taʿlīqa = Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥ asan b. Aḥmad al-Fārisī, al-Taʿlīqa ʿalā Kitāb Sībawayhi. Ed. by ʿAwaḍ b. Ḥ amad al-Qūzī. 6 vols. Cairo: Matḅ aʿat al-Amāna, 1990–96. Farrāʾ, Maʿānī = Abū Zakariyyāʾ Yaḥyā b. Ziyād al-Farrāʾ, Maʿānī l-Qurʾān. Ed. by Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Nağğār. 3 vols. Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya, 1955–72. Fayrūzābādī, Bulġa = Abū l-Ṭ āhir Mağd al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb al-Fayrūzābādī, al-Bulġa fī tārīḫ aʾimmat al-luġa. Ed. by Muḥammad al-Miṣrī. Damascus: Wizārat al-T̠aqāfa, 1972. Fayrūzābādī, Qāmūs = Abū l-Ṭāhir Mağd al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb al-Fayrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥ īṭ. 4 vols. Cairo: Muṣtạ fā l-Bābī al-Ḥ alabī, 1952. Ğāḥ iẓ, Bayān = Abū ʿUt̠mān ʿAmr b. Baḥ r al-Ğāḥ iẓ, al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn. Ed. by ʿAbdalsalām Muḥammad Hārūn. 4th ed. 4 vols. Cairo: Lağnat al-Taʾlīf wa-l-Tarğama wa-l-Našr, 1948–50. Ğāḥ iẓ, Ḥ ayawān = Abū ʿUt̠mān ʿAmr b. Baḥ r al-Ğāḥ iẓ, Kitāb al-Ḥ ayawān. Ed. by ʿAbdalsalām Muḥammad Hārūn. 8 vols. Repr. from the Cairo edition, Beirut: Dār al-Ğīl, 1992. Ğāḥiẓ, Muʿallimīn = Abū ʿUt̠mān ʿAmr b. Baḥr al-Ğāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-Muʿallimīn, in Rasāʾil al-Ğāḥ iẓ (vol. 3, pp. 27–51). Ed. by ʿAbdalsalām Muḥammad Hārūn. 4 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Ḫ ānğī, 1979. Ğāḥiẓ, Ṣināʿāt = Abū ʿUt̠mān ʿAmr b. Baḥr al-Ğāḥiẓ, Risāla fī ṣināʿāt al-quwwād, in Rasāʾil al-Ğāḥ iẓ (vol. 1, pp. 379–93). Ed. by ʿAbdalsalām Muḥammad Hārūn. 4 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Ḫ ānğī, 1979. Ğawālīqī, Muḫtaṣar = Abū Manṣūr Mawhūb b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Ğawālīqī, Muḫtaṣar Šarḥ amt̠ilat Sībawayhi. Ed. by Ṣābir Bakr Abū l-Suʿūd. Asyūṭ: Maktabat al-Ṭalīʿa, 1979. Ğawharī, Ṣaḥ āḥ = Abū Naṣr Ismāʿīl b. Ḥ ammād al-Ğawharī, al-Ṣaḥ āḥ . Ed. by Aḥmad ʿAbdalġafūr ʿAṭṭār. 2nd ed. 6 vols. Beirut: Dār al-ʿIlm li-l-Malāyīn, 1979. Ğurğānī, Asrār = Abū Bakr ʿAbdalqāhir b. ʿAbdalraḥmān al-Ğurğānī, Asrār al-ʿArabiyya. Ed. by Hellmut Ritter. Istanbul: Government Press, 1954. Ğurğānī, ʿAwāmil = Abū Bakr ʿAbdalqāhir b. ʿAbdalraḥ mān al-Ğurğānī, al-ʿAwāmil al-miʾa l-naḥwiyya fī uṣūl ʿilm al-ʿArabiyya, bi-šarḥ Ḫ ālid al-Azharī. Ed. by al-Badrāwī Zahrān. 2nd ed. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1988. Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil = Abū Bakr ʿAbdalqāhir b. ʿAbdalraḥmān al-Ğurğānī, Dalāʾil al-iʿğāz. Ed. by Muḥammad Rašīd Riḍā. Repr. from the Cairo edition, Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1981. Ğurğānī, Ğumal = Abū Bakr ʿAbdalqāhir b. ʿAbdalraḥmān al-Ğurğānī, al-Ğumal. Ed. by ʿAlī Ḥ aydar. Damascus: Mağmaʿ al-Luġa l-ʿArabiyya, 1972. Ğurğānī, Miftāḥ = Abū Bakr ʿAbdalqāhir b. ʿAbdalraḥ mān al-Ğurğānī, al-Miftāḥ fī l-taṣrīf. Ed by ʿAlī Tawfīq al-Ḥ amad. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1987. Ğurğānī, Muqtaṣid = Abū Bakr ʿAbdalqāhir b. ʿAbdalraḥ mān al-Ğurğānī, Kitāb al-Muqtaṣid fī šarḥ al-Īḍāḥ . Ed. by Kāẓim Baḥ r al-Marğān. 2 vols. Baghdad: Dār al-Rašīd, 1982. Ğurğānī, Ḥ āšiya = ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Šarīf al-Ğurğānī, Ḥ āšiya [ʿalā l-Kaššāf; in the margin of Zamaḫšarī’s Kaššāf ]. Ḫ afāğī, Sirr = Abū Muḥammad ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. Saʿīd b. Sinān al-Ḫ afāğī, Sirr al-faṣāḥ a. Ed. by ʿAlī Fūda. Cairo: Maktabat al-Ḫ ānğī, 1932. Ḫ alaf, Muqaddima = Abū Muḥ riz Ḫ alaf b. Ḥ ayyān al-Aḥ mar al-Baṣrī, Muqaddima fī l-naḥ w. Ed. by ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Tanūḫī. Damascus: Wizārat al-T̠aqāfa wa-l-Iršād al-Qawmī, 1961. Ḫ alīl, ʿAyn = Abū ʿAbdalraḥ mān al-Ḫ alīl b. Aḥ mad al-Farāhīdī, Kitāb al-ʿAyn. Ed. by Mahdī al-Maḫzūmī & Ibrāhīm al-Sāmarrā ʾī. 8 vols. Baghdad: Dār al-Rašīd, 1980–85. Ḫ alīl, Ğumal = Abū ʿAbdalraḥmān al-Ḫ alīl b. Aḥmad al-Farāhīdī, al-Ğumal fī l-naḥw. Ed. by Faḫr al-Dīn Qabāwa. 2nd ed. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1987. Ḥ arīrī, Durra = Abū Muḥammad al-Qāsim b. ʿAlī al-Ḥ arīrī, Durrat al-ġawwāṣ fī awhām al-ḫ awāṣs.̣ Ed. by Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm. Cairo: Dār Nahḍat Miṣr, 1975.

bibliographical references

309

Hārūn, Šarḥ = Abū Naṣr Hārūn b. Mūsā l-Qaysī al-Mağrīṭī al-Qurt ̣ubī, Šarḥ ʿuyūn Kitāb Sībawayhi. Ed. by ʿAbd Rabbihi ʿAbdallaṭīf ʿAbd Rabbihi. Cairo: Matḅ aʿat Ḥ assān, 1984. Ḫ awārizmī, Mafātīḥ = Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Ḫ awārizmī, Mafātīḥ al-ʿulūm. Ed. by G. van Vloten. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1895. Ḥ āzim, Minhāğ = Abū l-Ḥ asan Ḥ āzim b. Muḥammad al-Qartạ̄ ğannī, Minhāğ al-bulaġāʾ wa-sirāğ al-udabāʾ. Ed. by Muḥammad al-Ḥ abīb Ibn al-Ḫ awğa. 2nd ed. Beirut: Dār al-Ġarb al-Islāmī, 1981. Ibn ʿAbbād, Muḥ īṭ = Abū l-Qāsim al-Ṣāḥib Ismāʿīl Ibn ʿAbbād, al-Muḥ īṭ fī l-luġa. Ed. by Muḥammad Ḥ asan Āl Yāsīn. 11 vols. Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1994. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Bahğa = Abū ʿUmar Yūsuf b. ʿAbdallāh Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Bahğat al-mağālis wa-uns al-muğālis wa-šaḥ d̠ al-d̠āhin wa-l-hāğis. Ed. by Muḥammad Mursī l-Ḫ awlī. 2 vols. Cairo: al-Dār al-Miṣriyya li-l-Taʾlīf wa-l-Tarğama, 1962. Ibn ʿAbd Rabbihi, ʿIqd = Abū ʿUmar Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd Rabbihi, al-ʿIqd al-farīd. Ed. by Aḥmad Amīn et al. 7 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1991. Ibn Abī ʿAwn, Ağwiba = Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad Ibn Abī ʿAwn, al-Ağwiba l-muskita. Ed. by Muḥ ammad ʿAbdalqādir Aḥ mad. Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahḍ a l-Miṣriyya, 1985. Ibn al-Anbārī, Asrār = Abū l-Barakāt ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Muḥammad al-Anbārī, Asrār al-ʿArabiyya. Ed. by Muḥammad Bahğat al-Bītạ̄ r. Damascus: Matḅ aʿat al-Taraqqī, 1957. Ibn al-Anbārī, Inṣāf = Abū l-Barakāt ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Muḥammad al-Anbārī, al-Inṣāf fī masāʾil al-ḫilāf bayna l-naḥwiyyīn al-Baṣriyyīn wa-l-Kūfiyyīn. Ed. by Muḥammad Muḥyī l-Dīn ʿAbdalḥamīd. 2 vols. Cairo: al-Maktaba l-Tiğāriyya, 1955. Ibn al-Anbārī, Lumaʿ = Abū l-Barakāt ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Muḥammad al-Anbārī, Lumaʿ al-adilla fī uṣūl al-naḥw. Ed. by Saʿīd al-Afġānī. 2nd ed. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1971. Ibn al-Anbārī, Nuzha = Abū l-Barakāt ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Muḥammad al-Anbārī, Nuzhat al-alibbāʾ fī ṭabaqāt al-udabāʾ. Ed. by Ibrāhīm al-Sāmarrāʾī. Baghdad: Maktabat alAndalus, 1970. Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ = Bahāʾ al-Dīn ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbdalraḥmān Ibn ʿAqīl, Šarḥ Ibn ʿAqīl ʿalā Alfiyyat Ibn Mālik. Ed. by Ramzī Munīr Baʿalbakī. Beirut: Dār al-ʿIlm li-l-Malāyīn, 1992. Ibn al-Dahhān, Šarḥ = Abū Muḥammad Saʿīd b. al-Mubārak b. ʿAlī Ibn al-Dahhān, Šarḥ abniyat Sībawayhi. Ed. by Ḥ asan Šād̠ilī Farhūd. Riyad: Dār al-ʿUlūm, 1987. Ibn Fāris, Ṣāḥ ibī = Abū l-Ḥ usayn Aḥ mad Ibn Fāris, al-Ṣāḥ ibī fī fiqh al-luġa wasunan al-ʿArab fī kalāmihā. Ed. by Muṣtạ fā l-Šuwaymī. Beirut: Muʾassasat Badrān, 1963. Ibn al-Ğazarī, Ġāya = Šams al-Dīn Abū l-Ḫ ayr Muḥammad b. Muḥammad Ibn al-Ğazarī, Ġāyat al-nihāya fī ṭabaqāt al-qurrāʾ. Ed. by Gotthelf Bergsträsser. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1982. Ibn Ğinnī, Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ = Abū l-Fatḥ ʿUt̠mān Ibn Ğinnī, al-Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ. Ed. by Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Nağğār. 3 vols. Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya, 1952–56. Ibn Ğinnī, Lumaʿ = Abū l-Fatḥ ʿUt̠mān Ibn Ğinnī, al-Lumaʿ fī l-ʿArabiyya. Ed. by Ḥ āmid al-Muʾmin. 2nd ed. Beirut: ʿᾹlam al-Kutub, 1985. Ibn Ğinnī, Muḥtasab = Abū l-Fatḥ ʿUtm ̠ ān Ibn Ğinnī, al-Muḥtasab fī tabyīn wuğūh sawād̠d̠ al-qirāʾāt. Ed. by ʿAlī al-Nağdī Nāṣif et al. 2 vols. Cairo: al-Mağlis al-Aʿlā li-l-Šuʾūn al-Islāmiyya, 1386–89 A.H. Ibn Ğinnī, Munṣif = Abū l-Fatḥ ʿUt̠mān Ibn Ğinnī, al-Munṣif, šarḥ Kitāb al-Taṣrīf li-lMāzinī. Ed. by Ibrāhīm Muṣtạ fā & ʿAbdallāh Amīn. 3 vols. Cairo: Muṣtạ fā l-Bābī al-Ḥ alabī, 1954–60. Ibn Ğinnī, Sirr = Abū l-Fatḥ ʿUtm ̠ ān Ibn Ğinnī, Sirr ṣināʿat al-iʿrāb. Ed. by Ḥ asan Hindāwī. 2 vols. Damascus: Dār al-Qalam, 1985. Ibn Ḫ ālawayhi, Laysa = Abū ʿAbdallāh al-Ḥ usayn b. Aḥmad Ibn Ḫ ālawayhi, Laysa fī kalām al-ʿArab. Ed. by Aḥmad ʿAbdalġafūr ʿAṭṭār. 2nd ed. Beirut: Dār al-ʿIlm li-lMalāyīn, 1979.

310

bibliographical references

Ibn Ḫ aldūn, Muqaddima = Waliyy al-Dīn Abū Zayd ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Muḥammad Ibn Ḫ aldūn, al-Muqaddima. Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-Lubnānī, 1956. Ibn Ḫ illikān, Wafayāt = Šams al-Dīn Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ibn Ḫ illikān, Wafayāt al-aʿyān wa-anbāʾ abnāʾ al-zamān. Ed. by Iḥsān ʿAbbās. 8 vols. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1968–72. Ibn Hišām, Awḍaḥ = Ğamāl al-Dīn Abū Muḥammad ʿAbdallāh b. Yūsuf Ibn Hišām, Awḍaḥ al-masālik ilā Alfiyyat Ibn Mālik. Ed. by Muḥammad Muḥyī l-Dīn ʿAbdalḥamīd. 4 vols. Cairo: al-Maktaba l-Tiğāriyya, 1956. Ibn Hišām, Muġnī = Ğamāl al-Dīn Abū Muḥammad ʿAbdallāh b. Yūsuf Ibn Hišām, Muġnī l-labīb ʿan kutub al-aʿārīb. Ed. by Muḥammad Muḥyī l-Dīn ʿAbdalḥamīd. 2 vols. Cairo: al-Maktaba l-Tiğāriyya, 1959. Ibn Hišām, Šarḥ = Ğamāl al-Dīn Abū Muḥ ammad ʿAbdallāh b. Yūsuf Ibn Hišām, Šarḥ Šud̠ūr al-d̠ahab fī maʿrifat kalām al-ʿArab. Ed. by Muḥammad Muḥyī l-Dīn ʿAbdalḥamīd. Cairo: al-Maktaba l-Tiğāriyya, 1953. Ibn Maḍāʾ, Radd = Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. ʿAbdalraḥmān Ibn Maḍāʾ al-Laḫmī, al-Radd ʿalā l-nuḥ āt. Ed. by Šawqī Ḍ ayf. 3rd ed. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1988. Ibn Makkī, Tat̠qīf = Abū Ḥ afṣ ʿUmar b. Ḫ alaf Ibn Makkī al-Ṣaqallī, Tat̠qīf al-lisān wa-talqīḥ al-ğanān. Ed. by ʿAbdalʿazīz Matạ r. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1981. Ibn Mālik, Tashīl = Ğamāl al-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallāh Ibn Mālik, Tashīl al-fawāʾid wa-takmīl al-maqāṣid. Ed. by Muḥammad Kāmil Barakāt. Cairo: Dār al-Kātib al-ʿArabī, 1967. Ibn Mālik, ʿUmda = Ğamāl al-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallāh Ibn Mālik, Šarḥ ʿUmdat al-ḥ āfiẓ wa-ʿuddat al-lāfiẓ. Ed. by ʿAbdalmunʿim Aḥmad Harīdī. Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya, 1975. Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān = Ğamāl al-Dīn Abū l-Faḍl Muḥammad b. Mukram Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab. 20 vols. Būlāq, 1300–07 A.H. Ibn al-Muʿtazz, Ṭabaqāt = Abū l-ʿAbbās ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad al-Muʿtazz bi-l-Lāh, Ṭabaqāt al-šuʿarāʾ. Ed. by ʿAbdalsattār Aḥmad Farrāğ. 4th ed. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1981. Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist = Abū l-Farağ Muḥammad b. Abī Yaʿqūb Ibn al-Nadīm, Kitāb al-Fihrist. Ed. by Riḍā Tağaddud. Tehran, 1971. Ibn al-Nāẓim, Šarḥ = Abū ʿAbdallāh Badr al-Dīn Muḥ ammad b. Muḥ ammad Ibn Mālik, known as Ibn al-Nāẓim, Šarḥ Alfiyyat Ibn Mālik. Ed. by ʿAbdalḥamīd al-Sayyid Muḥammad ʿAbdalḥamīd. Beirut: Dār al-Ğīl, n.d. Ibn Qutayba, Šiʿr = Abū Muḥammad ʿAbdallāh b. Muslim Ibn Qutayba al-Dīnawarī, al-Šiʿr wa-l-šuʿarāʾ. Beirut: Dār al-T̠aqāfa, 1971. Ibn Rašīq, ʿUmda = Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥ asan Ibn Rašīq al-Qayrawānī, al-ʿUmda fī maḥ āsin al-šiʿr wa-ādābihi wa-naqdihi. Ed. by Muḥammad Muḥyī l-Dīn ʿAbdalḥamīd. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Saʿāda, 1963–64. Ibn al-Šağarī, Amālī = Ḍ iyāʾ al-Dīn Abū l-Saʿādāt Hibatallāh b. ʿAlī Ibn al-Šağarī, al-Amālī l-Šağariyya. 2 vols. Hyderabad: Mat ̣baʿat Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUt̠māniyya, 1349 A.H. Ibn Sallām, Ṭabaqāt = Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥ ammad Ibn Sallām al-Ğumaḥ ī, Ṭabaqāt fuḥ ūl al-šuʿarāʾ. Ed. by Maḥ mūd Muḥ ammad Šākir. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Ğudda: Dār al-Madanī, 1980. Ibn al-Sarrāğ, Uṣūl = Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Sahl Ibn al-Sarrāğ, al-Uṣūl fī l-naḥw. Ed. by ʿAbdalḥusayn al-Fatlī. 3 vols. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1985. Ibn Sīda, Muḫ aṣsạ ṣ = Abū l-Ḥ asan ʿAlī b. Ismāʿīl Ibn Sīda, al-Muḫ aṣsạ ṣ. 17 vols. Būlāq, 1316–21 A.H. Ibn Sīda, Muḥ kam = Abū l-Ḥ asan ʿAlī b. Ismāʿīl Ibn Sīda, al-Muḥ kam wa-l-muḥ īṭ al-aʿẓam. Ed. by Ḥ usayn Naṣsạ̄ r et al. 4 vols. Cairo: Maʿhad al-Maḫt ̣ūṭāt al-ʿArabiyya, 1958–68. Ibn al-Sikkīt, Iṣlāḥ = Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb b. Isḥāq Ibn al-Sikkīt, Iṣlāḥ al-manṭiq. Ed. by

bibliographical references

311

Aḥmad Muḥammad Šākir & ʿAbdalsalām Muḥammad Hārūn. 2nd ed. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1956. Ibn Šuqayr, Ğumal = Ḫ alīl, Ğumal. Ibn Šuqayr, Muḥ allā = Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. al-Ḥ asan Ibn Šuqayr, al-Muḥ allā, wuğūh al-naṣb. Ed. by Fāʾiz Fāris. Beirut & Irbid: Muʾassasat al-Dirāsāt & Dār al-Amal, 1987. Ibn ʿUṣfūr, Ḍ arāʾir = Abū l-Ḥ asan ʿAlī b. Muʾmin Ibn ʿUṣfūr, Ḍ arāʾir al-šiʿr. Ed. by alSayyid Ibrāhīm Muḥammad. Beirut: Dār al-Andalus, 1980. Ibn ʿUṣfūr, Mumtiʿ = Abū l-Ḥ asan ʿAlī b. Muʾmin Ibn ʿUṣfūr, al-Mumtiʿ fī l-taṣrīf. Ed. by Faḫr al-Dīn Qabāwa. 4th ed. 2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Ᾱfāq al-Ğadīda, 1979. Ibn Wallād, Intiṣār = Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ibn Wallād, al-Intiṣār aw Kitāb naqd Ibn Wallād ʿalā l-Mubarrad fī raddihi ʿalā Sībawayhi. Ed. by Monique Barnards. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997. Ibn al-Warrāq, ʿIlal = Abū l-Ḥ asan Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallāh Ibn al-Warrāq, ʿIlal al-naḥw. Ed. by Maḥ mūd Muḥ ammad Maḥ mūd Naṣsạ̄ r. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2002. Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ = Muwaffaq al-Dīn Yaʿīš b. ʿAlī Ibn Yaʿīš, Šarḥ al-Mufaṣsạ l. 10 vols. Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa l-Munīriyya, n.d. Iṣfahānī, Tanbīh = Abū ʿAbdallāh Ḥ amza b. al-Ḥ asan al-Iṣfahānī, al-Tanbīh ʿalā ḥ udūt̠ al-taṣḥ īf. Ed. by Muḥammad Asʿad Ṭalas. Damascus: Mağmaʿ al-Luġa l-ʿArabiyya, 1968. Iṣfahānī, Aġānī = Abū l-Farağ ʿAlī b. Ḥ usayn al-Iṣfahānī, Kitāb al-Aġānī. Ed. by ʿAbdalsattār Aḥmad Farrāğ et al. 8th ed. 25 vols. Beirut: Dār al-T̠aqāfa, 1990. Mālaqī, Raṣf = Abū Ğaʿfar Aḥ mad b. ʿAbdalnūr al-Mālaqī, Raṣf al-mabānī fī šarḥ ḥ urūf al-maʿānī. Ed. by Aḥmad Muḥammad al-Ḫ arrāt.̣ Damascus: Matḅ aʿat Zayd b. T̠ābit, 1975. Marzubānī, Muqtabas = Yaġmūrī, Nūr. Marzubānī, Muwaššaḥ = Abū ʿUbaydallāh Muḥ ammad b. ʿImrān al-Marzubānī, al-Muwaššaḥ . Ed. by ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Bağāwī. Cairo: Dār Nahḍat Miṣr, 1965. Marzūqī, Šarḥ = Abū ʿAlī Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Marzūqī, Šarḥ Dīwān al-Ḥ amāsa. Ed. by Aḥmad Amīn & ʿAbdalsalām Muḥammad Hārūn. 4 vols. Repr. from the Cairo edition, Beirut: Dār al-Ğīl, 1991. Māzinī, Taṣrīf = Ibn Ğinnī, Munṣif. Muʾaddib, Daqāʾiq= Abū l-Qāsim Muḥammad b. Saʿīd al-Muʾaddib, Daqāʾiq al-taṣrīf. Ed. by Aḥ mad Nāğī l-Qaysī, Ḥ ātim Ṣāliḥ al-Ḍ āmin & Ḥ usayn Tūrāl. Baghdad: al-Mağmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-ʿIrāqī, 1987. Mubarrad, Kāmil = Abū l-ʿAbbās Muḥammad b. Yazīd al-Mubarrad, al-Kāmil. Ed. by Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm & al-Sayyid Šiḥāta. 4 vols. Cairo: Maktabat Nahḍat Miṣr, 1956. Mubarrad, Mud̠akkar = Abū l-ʿAbbās Muḥammad b. Yazīd al-Mubarrad, al-Mud̠akkar wa-l-muʾannat̠. Ed. by Ramaḍān ʿAbdaltawwāb & Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Hādī. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub, 1970. Mubarrad, Muqtaḍab = Abū l-ʿAbbās Muḥammad b. Yazīd al-Mubarrad, al-Muqtaḍab. Ed. by Muḥammad ʿAbdalḫāliq ʿUḍayma. 4 vols. Cairo: Dār al-Taḥrīr, 1965–68. Murādī, Ğanā = Badr al-Dīn al-Ḥ asan b. Qāsim al-Murādī, al-Ğanā l-dānī fī ḥ urūf al-maʿānī. Ed. by Faḫr al-Dīn Qabāwa & Muḥammad Nadīm Fāḍil. 2nd ed. Beirut: Dār al-Ᾱfāq al-Ğadīda, 1983. Naḥ ḥās, Šarḥ = Abū Ğaʿfar Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Naḥ ḥās, Šarḥ abyāt Sībawayhi. Ed. by Zuhayr Ġāzī Zāhid. Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1986. Qaysī, Kašf = Abū Muḥammad Makkī b. Abī Ṭ ālib al-Qaysī, Kitāb al-Kašf ʿan wuğūh al-qirāʾāt al-sabʿ wa-ʿilalihā wa-ḥ uğağihā. Ed. by Muḥyī l-Dīn Ramaḍān. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1984. Qazwīnī, Īḍāḥ = Ğalāl al-Dīn Abū l-Maʿālī Muḥ ammad b. Abdalraḥ mān al-Ḫ aṭīb

312

bibliographical references

al-Qazwīnī, al-Īḍāḥ fī ʿulūm al-balāġa. Repr. from the Cairo edition, Beirut: Maktabat al-Nahḍa, n.d. Qazwīnī, Talḫīṣ = Ğalāl al-Dīn Abū l-Maʿālī Muḥammad b. ʿAbdalraḥmān al-Ḫ atị̄ b al-Qazwīnī, al-Talḫīṣ fī ʿulūm al-balāġa. Ed. by ʿAbdalraḥmān al-Barqūqī. Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, n.d. Qifṭī, Inbāh = Ğamāl al-Dīn Abū l-Ḥ asan ʿAlī b. Yūsuf al-Qifṭī, Inbāh al-ruwāt ʿalā anbāh al-nuḥ āt. Ed. by Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm. 4 vols. Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī, 1986. Rāġib, Muḥ āḍ arāt = Abū l-Qāsim Ḥ usayn b. Muḥ ammad al-Rāġib al-Iṣf ahānī, Muḥ āḍarāt al-udabāʾ wa-muḥ āwarāt al-šuʿarāʾ wa-l-bulaġāʾ. 4 vols. Beirut: Dār Maktabat al-Ḥ ayāt, 1961. Ṣabbān, Ḥ āšiya = Abū l-ʿIrfān Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Ṣabbān, Ḥ āšiyat al-Ṣabbān ʿalā Šarḥ al-Ušmūnī. 4 vols. Būlāq, 1280 A.H. Sakkākī, Miftāḥ = Abū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf b. Abī Bakr Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Sakkākī, Miftāḥ al-ʿulūm. Ed. by Naʿīm Zarzūr. 2nd ed. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1987. Ṣanʿānī, Tahd̠īb = Sābiq al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Ibn Yaʿīš al-Ṣanʿānī, al-Tahd̠īb al-wasīṭ fī l-naḥw. Ed. by Faḫr Ṣāliḥ Sulaymān Qadāra. Beirut: Dār al-Ğīl, 1991. Šantamarī, Nukat = Abū l-Ḥ ağğāğ Yūsuf b. Sulaymān al-Šantamarī, al-Nukat fī tafsīr Kitāb Sībawayhi. Ed. by Zuhayr ʿAbdalmuḥ sin Sulṭān. 2 vols. Kuwait: Maʿhad al-Maḫt ̣ūtạ̄ t al-ʿArabiyya, 1987. Šantamarī, Taḥ sị̄ l = Abū l-Ḥ ağğāğ Yūsuf b. Sulaymān al-Šantamarī, Taḥ sị̄ l ʿayn al-d̠ahab min maʿdin ğawhar al-adab fī ʿilm mağāzāt al-ʿArab. Ed. by Zuhayr ʿAbdalmuḥsin Sulṭān. 2nd ed. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1994. Sībawayhi, Kitāb = Abū Bišr ʿAmr b. ʿUtm ̠ ān Sībawayhi, al-Kitāb. 2 vols. Būlāq, 1316–17 A.H. Sībawayhi, Kitāb = Abū Bišr ʿAmr b. ʿUtm ̠ ān Sībawayhi, al-Kitāb. Ed. by ʿAbdalsalām Muḥammad Hārūn. 5 vols. Cairo: al-Hayʾa l-Miṣriyya l-ʿᾹmma, 1977. Reference is made to this edition unless otherwise specified. Sīrāfī, Abyāt = Abū Muḥammad Yūsuf b. al-Ḥ asan al-Sīrāfī, Šarḥ abyāt Sībawayhi. Ed. by Muḥammad ʿAlī Sulṭānī. 2 vols. Damascus: Dār al-Maʾmūn li-l-Turāt ̠, 1979. Sīrāfī, Aḫbār = Abū Saʿīd al-Ḥ asan b. ʿAbdallāh al-Sīrāfī, Aḫbār al-naḥwiyyīn al-Baṣriyyīn. Ed. by Fritz Krenkow. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1936. Sīrāfī, Ḍ arūra = Abū Saʿīd al-Ḥ asan b. ʿAdballāh al-Sīrāfī, Ḍ arūrat al-šiʿr. Ed. by Ramaḍān ʿAbdaltawwāb. Beirut: Dār al-Nahḍa l-ʿArabiyya, 1985. Sīrāfī, Šarḥ = Abū Saʿīd al-Ḥ asan b. ʿAbdallāh al-Sīrāfī, Šarḥ Kitāb Sībawayhi. [in Kitāb’s margin, Būlāq, 1316–17 A.H.; also vols. 1 & 2, ed. by Ramaḍān ʿAbdaltawwāb & Maḥmūd Fahmī Ḥ iğāzī. Cairo: al-Hayʾa l-Miṣriyya l-ʿᾹmma li-l-Kitāb, 1986–1990]. Suhaylī, Amālī = Abū l-Qāsim ʿAbdalraḥmān b. ʿAbdallāh al-Suhaylī, Amālī l-Suhaylī fī l-naḥw wa-l-luġa wa-l-ḥ adīt̠ wa-l-fiqh. Ed. by Muḥammad Ibrāhīm al-Bannā. Cairo: Mat ̣baʿat al-Saʿāda, 1970. Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ = Abū l-Qāsim ʿAbdalraḥmān b. ʿAbdallāh al-Suhaylī, Natāʾiğ al-fikr fī l-naḥw. Ed. by Muḥammad Ibrāhīm al-Bannā. 2nd ed. Cairo: Dār al-Iʿtiṣām, 1984. Suyūtị̄ , Aḫbār = Ğalāl al-Dīn Abū l-Faḍl ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-Suyūtị̄ , al-Aḫbār al-marwiyya fī sabab waḍʿ al-ʿArabiyya, in Rasāʾil fī l-fiqh wa-l-luġa. Ed. by ʿAbdallāh al-Ğabbūrī. Beirut: Dār al-Ġarb al-Islāmī, 1982. Suyūtị̄ , Ašbāh = Ğalāl al-Dīn Abū l-Faḍl ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-Suyūtị̄ , al-Ašbāh ̠ āniyya, wa-l-naẓāʾir fī l-naḥw. 4 vols. Hyderabad: Matḅ aʿat Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUtm 1359–60 A.H. Suyūtị̄ , Buġya = Ğalāl al-Dīn Abū l-Faḍl ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-Suyūtị̄ , Buġyat al-wuʿāt fī ṭabaqāt al-luġawiyyīn wa-l-nuḥ āt. Ed. by Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1979. Suyūtị̄ , Hamʿ = Ğalāl al-Dīn Abū l-Faḍl ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-Suyūṭī, Hamʿ al-hawāmiʿ šarḥ Ğamʿ al-ğawāmiʿ fī ʿilm al-ʿArabiyya. 2 vols. Cairo: Mat ̣baʿat al-Saʿāda, 1327 A.H.

bibliographical references

313

Suyūtị̄ , Iqtirāḥ = Ğalāl al-Dīn Abū l-Faḍl ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-Suyūtị̄ , al-Iqtirāḥ fī ʿilm uṣūl al-naḥw. Ed. by Aḥmad Muḥammad Qāsim. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Saʿāda, 1976. T̠aʿlab, Mağālis = Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā T̠aʿlab, Mağālis T̠aʿlab. Ed. by ʿAbdalsalām Muḥammad Hārūn. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1960. Tanūḫī, Tārīḫ = Abū l-Maḥāsin al-Mufaḍḍal b. Muḥammad b. Misʿar al-Tanūḫī, Tārīḫ al-ʿulamāʾ al-naḥwiyyīn. Ed. by ʿAbdalfattāḥ Muḥammad al-Ḥ ulw. Riyad: Maṭābiʿ Dār al-Hilāl, 1981. Ušmūnī, Šarḥ = Abū l-Ḥ asan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Ušmūnī, Šarḥ al-Ušmūnī ʿalā Alfiyyat Ibn Mālik al-musammā Manhağ al-sālik ilā Alfiyyat Ibn Mālik. Ed. by Muḥammad Muḥyī l-Dīn ʿAbdalḥamīd. 3 vols. Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1955. Yaġmūrī, Nūr = Abū l-Maḥāsin Yūsuf b. Aḥmad al-Yaġmūrī, Nūr al-qabas al-muḫtaṣar min al-Muqtabas. Ed. by Rudolph Sellheim. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1964. Yāqūt, Muʿğam = Šihāb al-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallāh Yāqūt b. ʿAbdallāh al-Rūmī al-Ḥ amawī, Muʿğam al-udabāʾ. Ed. by Iḥsān ʿAbbās. 7 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Ġarb al-Islāmī, 1993. Zabīdī, Iʾtilāf = ʿAbdallaṭīf b. Abī Bakr b. Aḥmad al-Šarğī al-Zabīdī, Iʾtilāf al-nuṣra fī ḫtilāf nuḥ āt al-Kūfa wa-l-Baṣra. Ed. by Ṭāriq al-Ğanābī. Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1987. Zağğāğ, Mā yanṣarif = Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. al-Sariyy al-Zağğāğ, Mā yanṣarif wa-mā lā yanṣarif. Ed. by Hudā Maḥ mūd Qarāʿa. 2nd ed. Cairo: Lağnat Iḥyāʾ al-Turāt ̠ al-Islāmī, 1994. Zağğāğī, Ğumal = Abū l-Qāsim ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Isḥāq al-Zağğāğī, al-Ğumal. Ed. by Muḥammad b. Abī Šanab. Paris: Klincksieck, 1957. Zağğāğī, Ḥ urūf = Abū l-Qāsim ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Isḥāq al-Zağğāğī, Ḥ urūf al-maʿānī. Ed. by ʿAlī Tawfīq al-Ḥ amad. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1984. Zağğāğī, Īḍāḥ = Abū l-Qāsim ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Isḥāq al-Zağğāğī, al-Īḍāḥ fī ʿilal al-naḥw. Ed. by Māzin al-Mubārak. Cairo: Dār al-ʿUrūba, 1959. Zağğāğī, Mağālis = Abū l-Qāsim b. ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Isḥāq al-Zağğāğī, Mağālis al-ʿulamāʾ. Ed. by ʿAbdalsalām Muḥammad Hārūn. 2nd ed. Cairo: Maktab al-Ḫ āngī, 1983. Zamaḫšarī, Kaššāf = Abū l-Qāsim Maḥ mūd b. ʿUmar al-Zamaḫšarī, al-Kaššāf ʿan ḥ aqāʾiq al-tanzīl wa-ʿuyūn al-aqāwīl fī wuğūh al-taʾwīl. 4 vols. Cairo: Muṣtạ fā l-Bābī al-Ḥ alabī, 1968. Zamaḫšarī, Mufaṣsạ l = Abū l-Qāsim Maḥmūd b. ʿUmar al-Zamaḫšarī, al-Mufaṣsạ l fī ʿilm al-ʿArabiyya. Cairo, 1323 A.H. Zubaydī, Amt̠ila = Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. al-Ḥ asan al-Zubaydī al-Andalusī, Amt̠ilat al-abniya fī Kitāb Sībawayhi. Ed. by Muḥammad Ḫ alīfa al-Danāʿ. Beirut: Dār al-Nahḍa l-ʿArabiyya, 1996. Zubaydī, Laḥ n = Abū Bakr Muḥ ammad b. al-Ḥ asan al-Zubaydī al-Andalusī, Laḥ n al-ʿawāmm. Ed. by Ramaḍān ʿAbdaltawwāb. Cairo: al-Matḅ aʿa l-Kamāliyya, 1964. Zubaydī, Ṭabaqāt = Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. al-Ḥ asan al-Zubaydī al-Andalusī, Ṭabaqāt al-naḥwiyyīn wa-l-luġawiyyīn. Ed. by Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm. 2nd ed. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1973. Secondary sources ʿAbdalkarīm, Ṣubḥī ʿAbdalḥamīd Muḥammad. 1986. Mā fuhima ʿalā ġayr wağhihi min Kitāb Sībawayhi. Cairo: Dār al-Ṭ ibāʿa l-Muḥammadiyya. Abū Ğanāḥ, Ṣāḥib. 1980. “al-Qiyās fī manhağ al-Mubarrad”. al-Mawrid 9, 3. 51–62. Abū l-Hayğāʾ, Aḥmad & Ḫ alīl Aḥmad ʿAmāyira. 1987. Fahāris Lisān al-ʿArab. 7 vols. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla. ʿAlī, ʿAbdullāh Yūsuf. 1934. The Holy Qurʾān: Text, Translation and Commentary. Reprint from the Lahore edition, Beirut: Dār al-ʿArabiyya, 1968. Āl Yāsīn, Muḥammad Ḥ usayn. 1980. al-Dirāsāt al-luġawiyya ʿinda l-ʿArab ilā nihāyat al-qarn al-t̠ālit̠. Beirut: Dār Maktabat al-Ḥ ayāt.

314

bibliographical references

Anghelescu, Nadia. 2004. La langue arabe dans une perspective typologique. Bucharest: University of Bucharest. Anṣārī, Aḥmad Makkī. 1962a. “al-Muwāzana bayna l-manāhiğ al-Baṣriyya”. Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Cairo University 24. 43–68. ——. 1962b. “al-Tayyār al-qiyāsī fī l-madrasa l-Baṣriyya”. Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Cairo University 24. 1–42. ——. 1972. Sībawayhi wa-l-qirāʾāt. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif. ——. 1973. Yūnus al-Baṣr ī: Ḥ ayātuhu wa-āt̠āruhu wa-mad̠ āhibuhu. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif. ʿAzzāwī, Niʿmat Raḥīm. 1995. Fī ḥ arakat tağdīd al-naḥw wa-taysīrihi fī l-ʿaṣr al-ḥ adīt̠. Baghdad: Dār al-Šuʾūn al-T̠aqāfiyya l-ʿĀmma. Baalbaki, Ramzi. 1979. “Some aspects of harmony and hierarchy in Sībawayhi’s grammatical analysis”. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 2. 7–22. ——. 1981. “Arab grammatical controversies and the extant sources of the second and third centuries A.H.” Studia Arabica et Islamica: Festschrift for Iḥ sān ʿAbbās on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. by Wadād al-Qāḍī, 1–26. Beirut: American Univ. of Beirut. ——. 1982. “Tawahhum: an ambiguous concept in early Arabic grammar”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 45, 2. 233–44. ——. 1983. “The relation between naḥw and balāġa: A comaprative study of the methods of Sībawayhi and Ğurğānī”. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 11. 7–23. ——. 1985. “The treatment of qirāʾāt by the second and third century grammarians”. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 15. 11–32. ——. 1986. “On the meaning of the wāw al-maʿiyya construction”. al-ʿArabiyya: Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Arabic 19. 7–17. ——. 1988. “A contribution to the study of technical terms in early Arabic grammar—the term aṣl in Sībawayhi’s Kitāb ”. A Miscellany of Middle Eastern Articles in Memoriam Thomas Muir Johnstone, ed. by A.K. Irvine, R.B. Serjeant & G. Rex Smith, 163–77. Essex: Longman. ——. 1990. “Iʿrāb and bināʾ from linguistic reality to grammatical theory”. Studies in the History of Arabic Grammar II. Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on the History of Arabic Grammar, Nijmegen, 27 April–1 May 1987, ed. by Michael G. Carter & Kees Versteegh, 17–33. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. ——. 1991. “A balāġī approach to some grammatical šawāhid”. Proceedings of the Colloquium on Arabic Grammar, ed. by Kinga Dévényi & Tamás Iványi, 89–100. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Univ. & Csoma de Kőrös Society. ——. 1993. “Ibtidāʾ”. Mawsūʿat al-ḥ aḍāra l-Islāmiyya: Mawādd mawsūʿiyya min ḥ arf al-alif, 51–53. Amman: al-Mağmaʿ al-Malakī li-Buḥūt ̠ al-Ḥ aḍāra l-Islāmiyya. ——. 1995a. “The book in the grammatical tradition: Development in content and methods”. The Book in the Islamic World, ed. by George N. Atiyeh, 123–39. New York: State University of New York Press. ——. 1995b. “Reclassification in Arab grammatical theory”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 54. 1–13. ——. 1996. “al-Wiḥ da l-dāḫiliyya fī Kitāb Sībawayhi”. Buḥ ūt̠ ʿArabiyya muhdāt ilā l-Daktūr Maḥ mūd al-Samra, ed. by Ḥ usayn ʿAṭwān & Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Ḥ uwwar, 111–36. Amman: Ğāmiʿat al-Banāt al-Urduniyya. ——. 1998. “Kitāb al-ʿAyn and Jamharat al-lugha”. Early Medieval Arabic: Studies on al-Khalīl Ibn Aḥ mad, ed. by Karin C. Ryding, 44–62. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. ——. 1999a. “Coalescence as a grammatical tool in Sībawayhi’s Kitāb ”. Arabic Grammar and Linguistics, ed. by Yasir Suleiman, 86–106. Surrey: Curzon. ——. 1999b. “Expanding the maʿnawī ʿawāmil: Suhaylī’s innovative approach to the theory of regimen”. al-Abḥ āt̠ 47. 23–58. ——. 1999c. “A note on a controversial passage in Sībawayhi’s Kitāb”. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 37. 9–12.

bibliographical references

315

——. 2000–2001. “The occurrence of inšāʾ instead of ḫ abar: The gradual formulation of a grammatical issue”. Linguistique arabe et sémitique 1. 193–211. ——. 2001. “Bāb al-fāʾ [fāʾ + subjunctive] in Arabic grammatical sources”. Arabica 48. 186–209. ——. 2001–2002. “Ilḥ āq as a morphological tool in Arabic grammar”. Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 4. 1–25. ——. 2002–2003. “al-Maʿnā wa-aqsām al-kalim fī l-turāt ̠ al-naḥwī al-ʿArabī”. Revue de la lexicologie 18–19. 53–80. ——. 2004. “Some considerations of word order in kāna constructions”. Romano-Arabica: Arabic Linguistics N.S. 3. 41–58. ——. 2005a. “From burden to asset: Morphological change in the Arabic tradition”. Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon I, ed. by Lutz Edzard & Jan Retsö, 83–105. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. ——. 2005b. “Theoretical coherency versus pedagogical attainability: The conscious bias of Arab grammarians”. Alttagsleben und materielle Kultur in der arabischen Sprache und Literatur. Festschrift für Heinz Grotzfeld zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Thomas Bauer & Ulrike Stehli-Werbeck, 39–68. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. ——. 2005c. Review of R. Talmon’s Eighth-century Iraqi Grammar: A Critical Exploration of pre-Ḫ alīlian Arabic Linguistics. Journal of Semitic Studies 50. 413–16. ——. 2006a. “ʾAṣl”. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics I, 191–95. Leiden: E.J. Brill. ——. 2006b. “Visual influences on Arabic linguistic sciences”. The Medieval History Journal 9, 1. 37–61. ——. 2007a. “Introduction: The early Islamic grammatical tradition”. The Early Islamic Grammatical Tradition (The Formation of the Classical Islamic World, vol. 36), ed. by Ramzi Baalbaki, xiii–l. Aldershot: Ashgate. ——. 2007b. “Inside the speaker’s mind: Speaker’s awareness as arbiter of usage in Arab grammatical theory”. Approaches to Arabic Linguistics: Presented to Kees Versteegh on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. by Everhard Ditters & Harald Motzki, 3–23. Leiden & Boston: E.J. Brill. ——. Forthcoming a. “Analogy on a broader scale: The case of vocative and generic lā constructions”. ——. Forthcoming b. “The historic relevance of poetry in the Arabic grammatical tradition”. ——. Forthcoming c. “The place of Ğāḥiẓ in the Arabic philological tradition”. ——. Forthcoming d. “Tatạ wwur al-usus al-naẓariyya li-stiḫdām al-mitā̠ l wa-l-šāhid fī l-naḥw al-ʿArabī”. Bakkāʾ, Muḥammad Kāẓim. 1989. Manhağ Kitāb Sībawayhi fī l-taqwīm al-naḥwī. Baghdad: Dār al-Šuʾūn al-T̠aqāfiyya l-ʿĀmma. Belguedj, M.S. 1973. “La démarche des premiers grammairiens arabes dans le domaine de la syntaxe”. Arabica 20. 168–85. Blachère, Régis. 1952–66. Histoire de la littérature arabe des origines à la fin du XV e sciècle de J.-C. 3 vols. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. Bohas, Georges & Jean-Patrick Guillaume. 1984. Étude des théories des grammairiens arabes. I. Morphologie et phonologie. Damascus: Institut Français de Damas. Bohas, Georges, Jean-Patrick Guillaume & Djamel Eddin Kouloughli. 1990. The Arabic Linguistic Tradition. London & New York: Routledge. Būšīḫī, al-Šāhid. 1982. Muṣtạ laḥ āt naqdiyya wa-balāġiyya fī Kitāb al-Bayān wa-ltabayyun li-l-Ğāḥ iẓ. Beirut: Dār al-Ᾱfāq al-Ğadīda. Carter, Michael G. 1968. A Study of Sībawayhi’s Principles of Grammatical Analysis. Ph.D., Univ. of Oxford. ——. 1972a. “Les origines de la grammaire arabe”. Revue des études islamiques 40. 69–97. ——. 1972b. “ ‘Twenty dirhams’ in the Kitāb of Sībawayhi”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 35. 485–96.

316

bibliographical references

——. 1973a. “An Arab grammarian of the eighth century A.D.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93. 146–57. ——. 1973b. “Ṣarf et ḫilāf, contribution à lʾhistoire de la grammaire arabe”. Arabica 20. 292–304. ——. 1981. “The use of proper names as a testing device in Sībawayhi’s Kitāb”. Historiographia Linguistica 8, 2/3. 345–56. ——. 1983. “Language control as people control in Medieval Islam: The aims of the grammarians in their cultural context”. Arab Language and Culture, ed. by Ramzi Baalbaki (special volume, al-Abḥ āt̠ 31), 65–84. Beirut: American Univ. of Beirut. ——. 1991a. “Elision”. Proceedings of the Colloquium on Arabic Grammar, ed. by Kinga Dévényi & Tamás Iványi, 121–33. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Univ. & Csoma de Kőrös Society. ——. 1991b. “The ethical basis of Arabic grammar”. al-Karmil 12. 9–23. ——. 1998. “Another Khalīl, courtier, teacher, and sage”. Early Medieval Arabic: Studies on al-Khalīl Ibn Aḥ mad, ed. by Karin C. Ryding, 16–43. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. ——. 2004. Sībawayhi. London & New York: I.B. Tauris & Oxford University Press. ——. 2007. “Pragmatics and contractual language in early Arabic grammar and legal theory”. Approaches to Arabic Linguistics: Presented to Kees Versteegh on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. by Everhard Ditters & Harold Motzki, 25–44. Leiden & Boston: E.J. Brill. Dağanī, Fatḥī ʿAbdalfattāḥ. 1974. Abū l-Aswad al-Duʾalī wa-našʾat al-naḥw al-ʿArabī. Kuwait: Wakālat al-Mat ̣būʿāt. Danecki, Janusz. 1993. “The notion of taṣarruf in Arabic grammatical theory”. Studia arabistyczne i islamistyczne 1. 7–23. Ḍ ayf, Šawqī. 1968. al-Madāris al-naḥwiyya. 2nd ed. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif. Dévényi, Kinga. 1991. “al-Farrāʾ and al-Kisāʾī: References to grammarians and Qurʾān readers in the Maʿānī l-Qurʾān of al-Farrāʾ”. Proceedings of the Colloquium on Arabic Grammar, ed. by Kinga Dévényi & Tamás Iványi, 159–76. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Univ. & Csoma de Kőrös Society. Dimašqiyya, ʿAfīf. 1978. al-Munṭalaqāt al-taʾsīsiyya wa-l-fanniyya ilā l-naḥw al-ʿArabī. Beirut: Maʿhad al-Inmāʾ al-ʿArabī. Elamrani-Jamal, Abdelali. 1983. Logique aristotélicienne et grammaire arabe (Étude et documents). Paris: J. Vrin. Ess, Joseph van. 1992. Theologie und Gesellschaft in 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra: Eine Geschichte des religiösen Denkens im frühen Islam. Vol. 2. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Flügel, Gustav. 1862. Die grammatischen Schulen der Araber. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. Ğabal, Muḥammad Ḥ asan Ḥ asan. 1986. al-Iḥtiğāğ bi-l-šiʿr fī l-luġa: al-wāqiʿ wa-dalālātuhu. Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī. Goldenberg, Gideon. 1988. “Subject and predicate in Arab grammatical tradition”. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 138. 39–73. Guillaume, Jean-Patrick. 1988. “Le discours tout entier est nom, verbe et particule: Élaboration et constitution de la théorie des parties du discours dans la tradition grammaticale arabe”. Langages 92. 25–36. ——. 2001. “Le lexique technique de la tradition grammaticale arabe: questions de traduction”. Orbis/Supplementa (Métalangage et terminologie linguistique) 17. 591–605. ——. 2004. “Nouvelles élucubrations sur lʾapport et le support”. Langues et littératures du monde arabe 5. 69–79. Ğumʿa, Ḫ ālid ʿAbdalkarīm. 1989. Šawāhid al-šiʿr fī Kitāb Sībawayhi. 2nd ed. Cairo: al-Dār al-Šarqiyya. Ḥ addād, Ḥ annā Ğamīl. 1984. Mu ʿ ğam šawāhid al-naḥ w al-ši ʿ riyya. Riyad: Dār al-ʿUlūm.

bibliographical references

317

Ḥ adītī̠ , Ḫ adīğa. 1965. Abniyat al-ṣarf fī Kitāb Sībawayhi. Baghdad: Maktabat alNahḍa. ——. 1967. Kitāb Sībawayhi wa-šurūḥ uhu. Baghdad: Dār al-Taḍāmun. ——. 1974. al-Šāhid wa-uṣūl al-naḥw fī Kitāb Sībawayhi. Kuwait: Ğāmiʿat al-Kuwait. ——. 1980. Dirāsāt fī Kitāb Sībawayhi. Kuwait: Wakālat al-Mat ̣būʿāt. ——. 1981. Mawqif al-nuḥ āt min al-iḥtiğāğ bi-l-ḥ adīt̠ al-šarīf. Baghdad: Dār al-Rašīd. Ḫ ālidī, Sāra. 2006. At̠ar siyāq al-kalām fī l-ʿalāqāt al-naḥwiyya ʿinda Sībawayhi maʿa dirāsa muqārana bi-l-turāt̠ al-naḥwī al-ʿArabī wa-l-manāhiğ al-luġawiyya l-ḥ adīt̠a. M. A., American Univ. of Beirut. Ḫ alīl, Ḥ ilmī. 2000. Dirāsāt fī l-lisāniyyāt al-taṭb īqiyya. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿrifa l-Ğāmiʿiyya. Hārūn, ʿAbdalsalām. 1972–73. Muʿğam šawāhid al-ʿArabiyya. 2 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Ḫ ānğī. Heinrichs, Wolfhart. 1984. “On the genesis of the ḥ aqîqa-majâz dichotomy”. Studia Islamica 59. 111–40. Humbert, Geneviève. 1995. Les voies de la transmission du Kitāb de Sībawayhi. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Ḥ usayn, ʿAbdalqādir. 1970. At̠ar al-nuḥ āt fī l-baḥt ̠ al-balāġī. Cairo: Dār Nahḍat Miṣr. Ibrāhīm, Ḥ asan Ibrāhīm. 1983. Sībawayhi wa-l-ḍ arūra l-šiʿriyya. Cairo: Matḅ aʿat Ḥ assān. ʿĪd, Muḥ ammad. 1972. al-Riwāya wa-l-istišhād bi-l-luġa: Dirāsa li-qaḍāyā l-riwāya wa-l-istišhād fī ḍawʾ ʿilm al-luġa l-ḥ adīt̠. Cairo: ʿᾹlam al-Kutub. Itkonen, Esa. 1991. Universal History of Linguistics: India, China, Arabia, Europe. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Kinberg, Naphtali. 1996. A Lexicon of al-Farrāʾ’s Terminology in His Qurʾān Commentary with Full Definitions, English Summaries, and Extensive Citations. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Kouloughli, D.E. 1985. “À propos de lafẓ et maʿnā”. Bulletin dʾétudes orientales 35. 43–63. Larcher, Pierre. 2000. “Les relations entre la linguistique et les autres sciences dans la société arabo-islamique”. History of the Language Sciences, ed. by Sylvain Auroux et al., 312–18. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Levin, Aryeh. 1991. “The category of ʾasmāʾ al-fiʿl in Arabic grammar”. Proceedings of the Colloquium on Arabic Grammar, ed. by Kinga Dévényi & Tamás Iványi, 247–56. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Univ. & Csoma de Kőrös Society. ——. 1994. “Sībawayhi’s attitude to the spoken language”. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 17. 204–43. ——. 1995. “The fundamental principles of the Arab grammarians’ theory of ʿamal”. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 19. 214–32. ——. 1997. “The theory of al-taqdīr and its terminology”. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 21. 142–66. ——. 2000. “Sībawayhi”. History of the Language Sciences, ed. by Sylvain Auroux et al., 252–63. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Makram, ʿAbdalʿāl Sālim. 1977. al-Ḥ alqa l-mafqūda fī tārīḫ al-naḥw al-ʿArabī. Kuwait: Muʾassasat al-Wiḥda li-l-Našr wa-l-Tawzīʿ. Marāġī, Aḥ mad Muṣtạ fā. 1950. Tārīḫ ʿulūm al-balāġa wa-l-taʿrīf bi-riğālihā. Cairo: Muṣtạ fā l-Bābī al-Ḥ alabī. Mosel, Ulrike. 1975. Die syntaktische Terminologie bei Sībawaih. Diss. Universität München. Muṣtạ fā, Ibrāhīm. 1948. “Awwal man waḍaʿa l-naḥw”. Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Cairo University 10. 69–74. Nāṣif, ʿAlī al-Nağdī. 1953. Sībawayhi imām al-nuḥ āt. Cairo: ʿĀlam al-Kutub. al-Nassir, A.A. 1993. Sibawayhi the Phonologist: A Critical Study of the Phonetic and Phonological Theory of Sibawayhi as Presented in his Treatise Al-Kitab. London & New York: Kegan Paul International.

318

bibliographical references

Omran, Elsayed M.H. 1991. “Arabic grammar: Problems and reform efforts”. Proceedings of the Colloquium on Arabic Grammar, ed. by Kinga Dévényi & Tamás Iványi, 297–311. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Univ. & Csoma de Kőrös Society. Owens, Jonathan. 1988. The Foundations of Grammar: An Introduction to Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. ——. 1990. Early Arabic Grammatical Theory: Heterogeneity and Standardization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. ——. 2000. “The structure of Arabic grammatical theory”. History of the Language Sciences, ed. by Sylvain Auroux et al., 286–300. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Quḍāt, Salmān. 1995. “Ẓ āhirat al-ummāt fī l-naḥw al-ʿArabī”. Dirāsāt (Yarmouk University) 22, 1. 2967–89. Rammuny, Raji M. 1985. “al-Jurjānī: A pioneer of grammatical and linguistic studies”. Historiographia Linguistica 12, 3. 351–71. Reuschel, Wolfgang. 1959. al-Ḫ alīl ibn-Ạhamd, der Lehrer Sībawaihs, als Grammatiker. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Ryding, Karin C. 1992. “Morphosyntactic analysis in al-Jumal fii l-naḥw: Discourse structure and metalanguage”. Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics IV, ed. by Ellen Broselow et al., 263–77. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Sara, Solomon, I. 1991. “Al-Khalīl: The first Arab phonologist”. International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies 8, 1. 1–57. Šayḫ ʿAbdō, Hayt̠am. 2000. Sībawayhi l-naḥwī. Damascus: al-Awāʾil li-l-Našr wa-l-Tawzīʿ wa-l-Ḫ adamāt al-Ṭ ibāʿiyya. Schoeler, Gregor. 2006. The Oral and the Written in Early Islam. Ed. by James E. Montgomery. Trans. by Uwe Vagelpohl. London & New York: Routledge. Sezgin, Fuat. 1984. Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums IX: Grammatik. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Soudan, Frédérique. 1992. “lʾÉloquence arabe aux premiers temps de lʾIslam dʾaprés le Kitāb al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn d’al-Ğāḥiẓ”. Annales Islamologiques 26. 19–46. Šūbāšī, Šarīf. 2004. Li-taḥya l-luġa l-ʿArabiyya: Yasquṭ Sībawayhi. 3rd ed. Cairo: Maktabat Madbūlī. Suleiman, Yasir. 1999. The Arabic Grammatical Tradition: A Study in taʿlīl. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Talmon, Rafael. 1982. “Naḥwiyyūn in Sībawayhi’s Kitāb”. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 8. 12–38. ——. 1985a. “An eighth-century grammatical school in Medina: The collection and evaluation of the available material”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 48. 224–36. ——. 1985b. “Who was the first Arab grammarian? A new approach to an old problem”. Studies in the History of Arabic Grammar. Proceedings of the First Symposium on the History of Arabic Grammar, Nijmegen 16–19th April 1984, ed. by Hartmut Bobzin & Kees Versteegh, 128–45. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. ——. 1990. “Kitāb muqaddima fī l-naḥw al-mansūb ilā Ḫ alaf al-Aḥmar: Dirāsa wa-fihris muṣtạ laḥāt”. al-Karmil 11. 129–99. ——. 1997. Arabic Grammar in its Formative Age: Kitāb al-ʿAyn and its Attribution to Ḫ alīl b. Aḥ mad. Leiden: E.J. Brill. ——. 2003. Eighth-century Iraqi Grammar: A Critical Exploration of pre-Ḫ alīlian Arabic Linguistics. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Troupeau, Gérard. 1958. “Le commentaire dʾal-Sīrāfī sur le chapitre 565 du Kitāb de Sībawayhi”. Arabica 5. 168–82. ——. 1961. “À propos des grammairiens cités par Sībawayhi dans le Kitāb”. Arabica 8. 309–12. ——. 1976. Lexique-index du Kitāb de Sībawayhi. Paris: Klincksieck. ——. 1981. “La logique dʾIbn al-Muqaffaʿ et les origines de la grammaire arabe”. Arabica 28. 242–50.

bibliographical references

319

——. 1984. “La notion de ‘racine’ chez les grammairiens arabes anciens”. Matériaux pour une histoire des théories linguistiques, ed. by Sylvain Auroux et al., 239–46. Lille: Université de Lille III. ʿUḍ ayma, Muḥ ammad ʿAbdalḫāliq. 1975. Fahāris Kitāb Sībawayhi wa-dirāsa lahu. Cairo: Dār al-Ḥ adīt̠. Ūzūn, Zakariyyā. 2001. Ğināyat Sībawayhi: al-Raf ʿ al-tāmm li-mā fī l-naḥw min awhām. Beirut: Riyāḍ al-Rayyis li-l-Kutub wa-l-Našr. Versteegh, Kees. 1983. “Arabic grammar and the corruption of speech”. Arab Language and Culture, ed. by Ramzi Baalbaki (special volume, al-Abḥ āt̠ 31), 139–60. Beirut: American Univ. of Beirut. ——. 1989. “A sociological view of the Arab grammatical tradition: Grammarians and their professions”. Studia Linguistica et Orientalia Memoriae Haim Blanc Dedicata, ed. by Paul Wexler et al., 289–302. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. ——. 1990. “Grammar and exegesis: The origin of Kufan grammar and the Tafsīr Muqātil”. Der Islam 67. 206–42. ——. 1993. Arabic Grammar and Qurʾānic Exegesis in Early Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill. ——. 1995. The Explanation of Linguistic Causes: az-Zağğāğī’s Theory of Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. ——. 1997. Landmarks in Linguistic Thought III: The Arabic Linguistic Tradition. London & New York: Routledge. Weil, Gotthold. 1913. Die grammatischen Streitfragen der Basrer und Kufer. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Yaʿqūb, Imīl Badīʿ. 1992. al-Muʿğam al-mufaṣsạ l fī šawāhid al-naḥw al-šiʿriyya. 3 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya. ——. 1996. al-Muʿğam al-mufaṣsạ l fī šawāhid al-luġa l-ʿArabiyya. 14 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya. Yāqūt, Aḥmad Sulaymān. 1989. al-Kitāb bayna l-miʿyāriyya wa-l-waṣfiyya. Alexandria: Dār al-Maʿrifa l-Ğāmiʿiyya. Zahrān, al-Badrāwī, 1979. ʿĀlim al-luġa ʿAbdalqāhir al-Ğurğānī. Cairo: Dār alMaʿārif. Zakariyyā, Michel. 1986. al-Malaka l-lisāniyya fī Muqaddimat Ibn Ḫ aldūn. Beirut: al-Muʾassasa l-Ğāmiʿiyya li-l-Dirāsāt wa-l-Našr wa-l-Tawzīʿ.

INDICES

INDEX OF NAMES∗ ʿAbdallāh b. Abī Isḥāq see Ibn Abī Isḥāq, ʿAbdallāh ʿAbdalraḥmān b. Hurmuz 2, 5 Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī see Fārisī, Abū ʿAlī Abū ʿAmr al-Šaybānī see al-Šaybānī Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ 5, 8, 13–14, 25, 41–42, 52, 134, 153, 182, 277 Abū l-Aswad al-Duʾalī 2–6, 9, 11–12, 84 Abū Ǧ aʿfar al-Naḥ ḥās see al-Naḥḥās, Abū Ǧ aʿfar Abū Harb al-Aʿlam 156 Abū l-Ḫ at ̣tạ̄ b al-Aḫ faš see al-Aḫ faš al-Kabīr Abū Ḥ ayyān al-Andalusī 162, 191, 262, 290 Abū Hud̠ ayl al-ʿAllāf 304 Abū l-Maḍraḥī 25 Abū Misḥal 25, 27, 44 Abū Murhib 26 Abū Muslim 268 Abū l-Nağm al-ʿIğlī 214, 268 Abū Šamir 304 Abū l-Ṭayyib al-Luġawī 298 Abū ʿUbayd 26–27, 44 Abū ʿUbayda 21–23, 27, 237, 264, 298 Abū Zayd al-Anṣārī 25, 27, 44, 153, 156, 172, 298 ʿAḍud al-Dawla 265 ʿAğğāğ 111 al-Aḫ faš al-Awsat ̣ 21–23, 27, 53, 90, 172, 237–238, 255, 267, 292, 298, 303 al-Aḫ faš al-Kabīr 14 ahl al-Baṣra 23 ahl al-ḥaqq 279 ahl al-Kūfa 23 ahl al-Madīna 24 Aḫtạ l 41–42 al-Aḫwaṣ al-Riyāḥī 79 ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 3–4, 6 Almagest vii, 231

ʿAlqama al-Faḥ l 112 ʿĀmir 155 ʿAmmār al-Kalbī 267 ʿAmr b. Maʿdī Karib 179, 289 ʿAmr b. Tamīm 134 ʿAnbar 154 Anṣārī see Abū Zayd al-Anṣārī Aʿrāb/Aʿrābī 15, 26, 227, 301 Aristotle vii, 231 Aʿšā 214, 299–300, 303 Asad 38, 154 ʿĀṣim al-Aḥwal 6 ʿĀṣim b. Abī l-Nağūd 156 Aṣmaʿī 25, 27, 29, 42–43, 153, 171–172, 277, 298, 301 Aṣt ̣ādhyāyī 1 Astarābād̠ ī 59, 258, 262 ʿawāmm 301–302 Aws b. Ḥ ağar 243 Ayyūb 6 Azharī 17 Baġdādī 2, 253, 258, 271, 288, 299–300 Baghdad/Baghdadi 21, 25 Bakr b. Wāʾil 38, 155, 240 balāġiyyūn 171, 289, 301 Basra/Basran 3, 12–13, 21–25, 28–29, 140–141, 158, 232, 235, 239, 262–263, 303 Baššār b. Burd 42 Bilāl b. Abī Burdā 301 Blachère, R. 5 Bohas, G. 192 Carter, M.G. 5, 9–10, 17–19, 39, 172, 193, 223, 251 Damād̠ = Rufayʿ b. Salama Dārimī 214 Dimašqiyya, ʿA. 217–218 D̠ ū l-Rumma 80, 270 Duraywid 262

∗ No entry is assigned to either Sībawayhi or Kitāb since they occur in almost every page of the book.

324

index of names

Farazdaq 79, 214, 233, 270–271 Fāris, F. 28 Fārisī, Abū ʿAlī 240, 263, 265, 267, 270–271, 282 Farrāʾ 7, 21–23, 26–27, 90, 172, 232, 237, 255, 262–263, 292 Fayrūzābādī 290, 298 Fazāra 38, 154 fuṣaḥāʾ 25 ğāhiliyyūn 41 Ǧ āḥiẓ 44–45, 171, 231, 273, 297–306 Ǧ amīl b. Maʿmar 214 Ġaniyy 38 Ǧ armī 157 grammatikoi 19 Ǧ urğānī x, 90, 132, 171, 177–178, 234, 273, 282–291, 296–297, 306 al-Ḥ akam al-ʿUd̠ rī 438 Ḫ alaf al-Aḥmar 28–29, 90, 197, 292 Ḫ alīl b. Aḥmad viii, 1, 5–6, 8, 14, 16–18, 20–27, 45, 49, 51–53, 55, 60, 62, 67–68, 80, 82, 84–85, 102, 104, 112, 114, 127, 137–138, 142, 145, 153, 158, 172, 179, 186, 193, 208, 222–225, 257, 283, 298, 301, 303 Hamdān 155 Ḥ ammād b. Salama 8 Ḥ amza b. Ḥ abīb 7 Ḫ ansāʾ 279 Ḥ arīrī 199 Ḥ ārit ̠ b. Kaʿb 154–155 Ḥ āritī̠ 189, 213 Hārūn, ʿA. 9, 37 Hārūn b. Mūsā 5, 18 Ḫ at̠ʿam 38, 154–155 Ḥ iğāz/Ḥ iğāzī viii, 25, 37–39, 47–48, 51, 104, 157, 178, 193, 199–200, 259 Hišām (D̠ ū l-Rumma’s brother) 80 Hišām al-Muğāšiʿī 112 Hišām b. Muʿāwiya l-ḍarīr 90, 292 Hud̠ ayl 38, 156 Huğaym 154 Ḥ umayd al-Arqaṭ 260 Humbert, G. 18 Ibn ʿAbbās 6 Ibn Abī Isḥāq, ʿAbdallāh 5–6, 12–13, 30, 134 Ibn al-Anbārī 56–58, 90, 101, 140, 158, 233, 249, 266, 298 Ibn ʿAqīl 234 Ibn al-Aʿrābī 27

Ibn al-Ayham 179 Ibn Barhān 234 Ibn Barrī 300 Ibn Durayd 28, 257 Ibn Fāris 11, 266 Ibn Ǧ innī x, 40, 53, 102, 106, 171, 196, 240, 258, 271–282, 290, 297, 299, 302 Ibn Ḫ ālawayhi 225 Ibn Ḫ aldūn 250–251 Ibn Harma 43 Ibn Ḫ arūf 18, 236 Ibn Ḫ illikān 265 Ibn Hišām 44, 243, 253 Ibn Kaysān 262 Ibn Maḍāʾ vii, 265–266, 278–279, 290 Ibn Mālik 101, 142, 239, 253, 262 Ibn Manẓūr 234, 300 Ibn Marwān 244 Ibn Mayyāda 43 Ibn Misʿar al-Tanūḫ ī see Tanūḫ ī, Ibn Misʿar Ibn Muğāhid 156 Ibn Muʿtị̄ 262 Ibn al-Nadīm 298 Ibn al-Nāẓim 234, 262 Ibn Ṣābir 162 Ibn Sallām al-Ǧ umaḥī 6–7, 84 Ibn al-Sarrāğ 34, 59, 102, 234, 248–250, 255–257, 262–263, 270, 299 Ibn Sīda 11, 234 Ibn al-Sikkīt 23, 298 Ibn Šuqayr 28–29, 263 Ibn al-Ṭarāwa 293 Ibn ʿUmar 6 Ibn ʿUṣfūr 101, 234, 263 Ibn Wallād 238, 247 Ibn al-Warrāq 58, 266 Ibn Yaʿīš 258, 261, 299 ʿĪsā b. ʿUmar 5–6, 8, 13, 30, 301 islāmiyyūn 41 K. al-Aḍdād (Aṣmaʿī) 27 K. al-Aḍdād (Qutṛ ub) 26 K. Aḫbār al-naḥwiyyīn al-Baṣriyyīn 298 K. Alfiyyat Ibn Mālik 101, 261, 299 K. Amālī l-Zağğāğī 263 K. al-Amt̠āl (Abū ʿUbayd) 27 K. al-Amt̠āl (Muʾarriğ) 27 K. Amt̠āl al-ʿArab 27 K. Asrār al-ʿArabiyya 58, 266 K. Asrār al-balāġa 282, 296 K. al-ʿAwāmil (common title) 86 K. al-ʿAwāmil (Ḫ alīl) 85

index of names K. al-ʿAwāmil al-miʾa l-naḥwiyya 90, 282, 291 K. al-ʿAyn 8, 17, 23, 26, 172, 224 K. al-Ayyām wa-l-layālī wa-l-šuhūr 27 K. al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn 305 K. al-Biʾr 27 K. Buġyat al-wuʿāt 298 K. al-Bulġa 298 K. Dalāʾil al-iʿğāz 282, 284, 287, 289, 296 K. Faʿala wa-af ʿala 27 K. al-Farq 27 K. Faṣīḥ T̠aʿlab 299 K. al-Fihrist 298 K. al-Furūʿ 249 K. Ǧ amharat al-luġa 257 K. al-Ǧ āmiʿ 13, 30 K. Ġarīb al-ḥadīt ̠ 27 K. al-Ġarīb al-muṣannaf 26, 44 K. al-Ǧ īm 26 K. al-Ǧ umal (Ǧ urğānī) 282 K. al-Ǧ umal (Zağğāğī) 290, 299 K. al-Ǧ umal fī l-naḥw 28 K. Ḫ alq al-insān 27 K. Hamʿal-hawāmiʿ 266 K. al-Hamz 27 K. al-Ḫ aṣāʾiṣ 274–276, 280 K. Ḫ izānat al-adab 299 K. al-Ḥ urūf 26 K. al-Ibil 27, 172 K. al-Īḍāḥ (Fārisī) 282 K. al-Īḍāḥ fī ʿulūm al-balāġa 297 K. al-Ikmāl 13, 30 K. ʿIlal al-naḥw 58, 266 K. Inbāh al-ruwāt 298 K. al-Inṣāf 233 K. al-Intiṣār 238 K. Iʿrab al-Ḥ amāsa 271 K. Iṣlāḥ al-manṭiq 299 K. al-Ištiqāq 27 K. al-Kāmil 246 K. Laysa 225 K. al-Luġāt 14 K. al-Lumaʿ fī l-ʿArabiyya 274 K. Maʿānī l-Qurʾān (al-Aḫ faš al-Awsat)̣ 27, 172, 237 K. Maʿānī l-Qurʾān (Farrāʾ) 22, 27, 172, 237 K. Mağālis T̠aʿlab 237, 299 K. Mağāz al-Qurʾān 27, 237 K. Marātib al-naḥwiyyīn 298 K. Mā talḥan fīhi l-ʿawāmm 26 K. al-Miftāḥ fī l-ṣarf 282 K. Miftāḥ al-ʿulūm 297

325

K. al-Muḥallā 28 K. al-Muḫ aṣsạ ṣ 11 K. al-Munṣif 7, 274 K. Muqaddima fī l-naḥw 28–29, 197 K. al-Muqtabas 298 K. al-Muqtaḍab 59, 100, 216, 236–237, 245–246, 248, 256, 299 K. al-Muqtaṣid fī šarḥ al-Īḍāḥ 282 K. al-Mutaʿallimīn 303 K. al-Mut̠allat ̠āt 26 K. al-Nabāt 27, 172 K. Natāʾiğ al-fikr fī l-naḥw 290–291 K. al-Nawādir (Abū l-Maḍraḥī) 25 K. al-Nawādir (Abū Misḥal) 25, 27, 44 K. al-Nawādir (Qurayba Umm al-Buhlūl al-Asadiyya) 25 K. al-Nawādir fī l-luġa (Abū Zayd al-Anṣārī) 27, 44, 156, 172 K. Nūr al-qabas 298 K. Nuzhat al-alibbāʾ 298 K. al-Šāʾ 27, 172 K. al-Ṣāḥibī 11 K. Šarḥ al-ʿilal 12, 30 K. Šarḥ al-Kāfiya 258 K. Šarḥ al-Mufaṣsạ l 258, 299 K. Šarḥ šawāhid al-Muġnī 44 K. al-Silāḥ 27 K. Sirr ṣināʿat al-iʿrāb 258, 274 K. Ṭabaqāt al-naḥwiyyīn wa-l-luġawiyyīn 298 K. Tahd̠ īb al-luġa 17 K. Taḫ līṣ al-šawāhid wa- talḫīṣ al-fawāʾid 44 K. al-Talḫīṣ fī ʿulūm al-balāġa 297 K. al-Taṣrīf 235, 237, 248 K. al-Taṣrīf al-mulūkī 274 K. al-Uṣūl fī l-naḥw 59, 249, 299 K. Wuğūh al-naṣb 28 K. al-Wuḥūš 27, 172 Kaʿb 38 Kināna 154–155 Kisāʾī 22–23, 25–26, 263, 298 Kufa/Kufan 7, 21–25, 28–29, 90, 140–141, 158, 231–234, 239, 258, 261–263, 291–292 Labīd 198 al-Laʿīn al-Minqarī 214 Laylā l-Aḫyaliyya 156 Levin, A. 46 Lisān al-ʿArab 234, 300 luġawī/luġawiyyūn 11, 13–14, 274, 298

326

index of names

Makīn al-ʿUd̠ rī 43 Mālaqī 290 Mālik b. Asmāʾ 302 al-Marrār al-Asadī 218 Marzubānī 298 Marzūqī 44 Māzinī 7, 52–53, 101, 231, 235, 237, 248–249, 251, 267 Medina 24, 302 Mosel, U. 33 Muʿād̠ al-Harrāʾ 268 Muʾarriğ al-Sadūsī 27 Mubarrad vii, 13, 59, 80, 100–102, 140, 216–217, 232, 234–250, 253, 255–257, 266, 280, 299, 306 al-Mufaḍḍal al-Ḍ abbī 27 Muğāhid b. Ǧ abr 10 muḫ aḍramūn 41 Muḥammad b. al-Sāʾib al-Kalbī 10 Muhayyā 275 muḥdat ̠ūn 41 Muqātil b. Sulaymān 10 Murğiʾites 303 mutaʾaḫ ḫirūn 250 mutakallim/mutakallimūn 298, 304 Muʿtazilites 279, 304 muwalladūn 7, 41–42, 242, 300–301 al-Nābiġa l-D̠ ubyānī 214, 295 al-Naḍr b. Šumayl 25–26 Nāfiʿ 244 Nağd 25 naḥārīr 20, 50, 208, 223, 225 al-Naḥ ḥās, Abū Ǧ aʿfar 262 naḥwī/naḥwiyyūn 11, 13–15, 18–20, 23, 29, 50, 52–53, 56, 134, 207, 216, 223, 274, 284, 298 Naṣr b. ʿĀṣim 2, 5 al-Naẓzạ̄ m al-Muʿtazilī 301, 304 Organon vii, 231 Owens, J. 34, 236 Pāṇini 1 Ptolemy vii, 231 Qabāwa, F. 28 al-Qattāl al-Kilābī 239 Qays 38, 156 Qazwīnī 297 Qiftị̄ 85, 298 Qurayba Umm al-Buhlūl al-Asadiyya 25

qurrāʾ 5, 7, 243 — ahl al-Madīna 24 Qutṛ ub 26–27, 171 Rabīʿa 38, 103, 115, 155, 181 Rāzī 16 Ruʾba 43, 156, 218 Rufayʿ b. Salama 264–265 Rūm 268 Rummānī 267 Saʿd 38 Ṣāʿid al-Andalusī vii, 231 Sakkākī 297 Salama b. ʿĀṣim 232 Šalawbīn 234 Salūlī 42 Sanskrit 1 Šantamarī 180 sāqat al-šuʿarāʾ 43 al-Šaybānī, Abū ʿAmr 25–26 Sīrāfī 16, 180, 234, 267, 298 Sufyān al-T̠awrī 10 Suhaylī x, 171, 236, 273, 290–297 Sulaym 38 Suyūtị̄ 2, 44, 59, 90, 162, 259, 261–263, 266, 290, 292–293, 298 Tāğ al-ʿArūs 234 T̠aʿlab 232, 237, 299, 306 Talmon, R. 17, 19, 21–22, 25, 86 Tamīm/Tamīmī viii, 37–39, 47–48, 51, 105, 157, 178–179, 199–200, 241, 275, 277 Tanūḫ ī, Ibn Misʿar 28, 298 Ṭayyiʾ 38, 156 Tihāma 25 Troupeau, G. 32, 34–35 ʿUd̠ ra 155 ʿulamāʾ al-bayān 289 ʿUmar b. al-Ḫ aṭṭāb 6 ʿUmāra b. ʿAqīl 277 Umayya b. Abī l-Ṣalt 214 ʿUqayl 156 Ušmūnī 254, 259 Versteegh, K.

10, 232

Yaġmūrī 298 Yaḥyā b. Yaʿmur 6 Yamūt b. al-Muzarriʿ Yemeni 277

298

index of names Yūnus b. Ḥ abīb viii, 8, 13–18, 23, 25, 52, 84–85, 134, 182 Zabīd 154–155 Zabīdī 234 Zağğāğ 234 Zağğāğī 67, 250, 263, 290, 299

Ẓ āhirites 278–279 Zamaḫ šarī 234 Zanğ 268 Zayd b. ʿAlī 10 Zubaydī 13–14, 298 Zuhayr b. Abī Sulmā 79, 252–254

327

INDEX OF TERMS ʿadad 90 ʿadam naqḍ al-maʿnā see naqḍ ad̠ ān 42 aḍdād 171 ʿadl 55 aḍmara 200 af ʿal al-tafḍīl 89 afḍal 116 afšā 116 afṣaḥ 199 afwāh al-ʿArab 26 aʿğamiyy al-aṣl 99 ağdar 118 ağmal 59 aġrāḍ 274 ağwad 103, 185–186, 227 ağwaf 35 aḫ aff 59, 66, 101, 114–115, 118 aḫ awāt 92, 160, 245 aḫbara 10 aḥsan 59, 74, 123, 184 aḥyān 137 akt̠ar 54, 61, 103, 123, 186, 227 ʿalā ḥāl wāḥida 157 ʿalā wağh wāḥid 83 ʿalam bi-l-ġalaba 1 ʿalam manqūl 223 alif 48 — maqṣūra 149 — al-nudba 64 ʿamal vii–ix, 71–72, 83–98, 139, 152, 175, 195–197, 215, 219, 227, 244, 247, 250, 264, 278, 290–291, 293–295 aʿmala/uʿmila 86 ʿāmil/ʿawāmil 14, 29, 32–33, 71, 78, 84–94, 97, 104, 120, 124, 139, 173, 195, 197, 229, 244–245, 247, 264, 273, 278, 282, 291–296 ʿaṭf ʿalā ʿāmilayni 244 ʿawāmil al-af ʿāl 87, 244 — ‘al-asmāʾ 87, 244 — al-ğazm 86 — al-naṣb 86 bāb al-ʿawāmil 245 ḥarf maṣdarī ġayr ʿāmil 262 lafẓī ʿawāmil see lafẓ maʿnawī ʿawāmil see maʿnā taṣarruf al-ʿāmil 244

ʿamila fī 85–86 amr 62–63, 126, 174–176, 186, 212, 256, 258, 270 lām al- — 163, 243 amṣār 40, 236 amt ̠āl viii, 27 amt ̠ila 37, 134, 207–215, 217, 227, 239, 254 an muḍmara 76–77 ʿanā 172 ʿāqaba 24 aqbaḥ 59 ʿaqd 305 aqwā 117, 126, 180 aqyas 39, 48, 51, 103, 241 — al-qawlayni 51 — al-wağhayni 39 ʿArabiyya 38, 134 arāda 172 ʿarḍ 63, 258 al-asmāʾ al-sitta 155 aṣl/uṣūl vii–ix, 10, 13, 29, 56–57, 71, 80, 98–112, 174, 215, 219, 221, 224, 227, 232, 238, 248–249, 264, 277, 282, 290 aṣl al-ğazāʾ 127 — al-kalām 99 — /uṣūl al-t̠anāyā 98 maʿdūl ʿan aṣlihi 161, 227 maḥdūd ʿan aṣlihi 228 uṣūl ʿilm al-ʿArabiyya 249 aṣnāf al-dalālāt 305 asrār al-naẓm 296 aṣwāt 279 at ̠ar (of Prophet’s companions) 8 at ̠ar (impact) 295 ʿat ̣f 138, 140, 195 — ʿalā ʿāmilayni 244 at ̠qal 119 ʿawāmil see ʿāmil ʿawīṣ al-naḥw 303 awlā 127 awwal ix, 113, 117–121 awzan 277 aysar 302 ayyām al-ʿArab 43 badal 9–10, 178–180, 201, 272 balāġa 273, 283, 296–297

index of terms banāt al-arbaʿa 34 banāt al-t̠alāt ̠a 34 banayta ʿalā 270 bayān 273, 304–305 bināʾ 33, 58, 87, 93–94, 153–161, 181 — ʿāriḍ 159, 228 ḍaʿīf 16, 43, 181, 288 dalīl 10, 237 ḍamīr al-šaʾn 260 ḍamm/ḍamma 33, 86–87, 93, 105, 114, 154, 161, 228–229, 247 ḍāraʿa 58, 66 ḍarūra 45, 104, 110–113, 121, 180 dīwān 44 duʿāʾ 62, 185, 258 fāḥiš 239, 242, 244 fāʿil 33, 57, 292 fakk al-idġām 35 farʿ/furūʿ 56, 71, 238, 248–249, 282 faṣāḥa 296 faṣīḥ 41, 207 — al-kalām 281 fatḥ/fatḥa 24, 31, 33, 51, 64, 67, 86–87, 93, 114–115, 154, 158, 201, 247 fiʿl/fiʿlī 4, 33–34, 66, 119, 122, 125, 129, 294 maʿnā l-fiʿl 173 fiʿl (protasis) 142 fiqh 6–7, 9 — al-luġa 11 Fuṣḥā 39–40 ğāʾa li-maʿnā 93 ğaḥd 10, 28, 258 ğāhilī/ğāhiliyyūn 41–42 ğāhiliyya 41 ġalat ̣ 199, 201, 244, 253 ğamʿ al-luġa 24, 40, 52, 153, 235 ğamīl 59 ġarīb viii, 11, 44–45, 153, 172 ğarr 33, 86, 93, 154, 173, 176, 196, 278 bāb al- — 164 lām al- — 163 ğārr 75 ğawāb 10, 62, 142, 186–187, 255 — al-fāʾ 255 ğawāzim 87 ġayr ğāʾiz 181, 241 ġayr maqīs 44 ġayr maqṣūd bi-l-nidāʾ 73 ġayr mustaḥsan 225 ġayr mut ̣t ̣arid 44 ġayr wāğib 256

329

ğayyid 16, 98, 103, 227, 251 luġa ğayyida 24 ğazāʾ 186, 197 aṣl al- — 127 umm ḥurūf al- — 79, 127, 143 ğazm 4, 33, 86, 93, 154, 156, 173, 196, 278 ʿawāmil al- — 86 ğumla 35 ġumūḍ 267 ḫ abar (predicate) 10, 269, 272, 291 ḫ abar/ḫ abarī (statement) 216, 269–272 ḫ abīt ̠ 16, 103, 182 ḥad̠ afa 70 ḥadd 10, 98, 227 maʿdūl ʿan ḥaddihi 161, 227 ḥad̠ f 28, 31, 70, 108, 168, 173, 195, 219 ḥadīt ̠ 6–9, 36–37, 40, 207, 236 ḫ afḍ 4 ḫ affafa 59 ḫ afīf 59, 221 ḥāğiz ġayr ḥaṣīn 115 ḥāl 33–34, 92, 162, 182, 199–200, 292–293, 299 — al-ḥadat ̠ ḫ ālifa 162 ḥaml ʿalā l-akt̠ar 55, 135–136 ḥaml ʿalā l-maʿnā 280 ḫ amsūn (in Kitāb’s šawāhid) 42 hamza 39, 48, 69, 99, 102, 112, 127, 222, 226, 246 hamzat al-taswiya 226 ḥaraka 4, 115 ḥarf 4, 66, 125, 127, 129, 294 — maṣdarī ġayr ʿāmil 262 — mušabbah bi-l-fiʿl 162 ḥasan x, 9, 59, 98, 103, 173, 187, 202, 227, 251 ḫ at ̣aʾ 199, 252–253 — fāḥiš 239, 242 — lā yaṣluḥ 239 ḫ at ̣t ̣ 305 ḫiffa ix, 113, 115, 276 ḥikāya 271 ḥikma 56, 67–68, 82, 153, 264, 274 ḫiyār 10 ḥuğğa 10, 134 ḥukm 56 ḫūlifa bi- 160, 169, 229 ḥurūf al-d̠ alaq wa-l-šafawiyya 20 ḥusn 145–146 ibdāl 31 ibtidāʾ 75–76, 91, 120–121, 169, 176, 188, 194, 204, 216, 228, 289

330

index of terms

iḍāfa 89, 109, 123, 129, 131, 158, 160, 170, 194, 218, 294 idġām 7, 31, 60, 116, 148–149 iḍmār 10, 70, 81, 108, 195 — al-fiʿl al-matrūk iẓhāruhu 129, 142, 185 iḍt ̣irār see ḍarūra īğāb 297 iğḥāf 116–117 iḫbār 194, 216 iḫ lāl 116–117 ihtimām 284–287, 296 iḫtiṣāṣ 71–72, 76, 94, 126, 139, 294 iḫtiyār 199 iktifāʾ 57 iʿlāl 31, 107, 219–220 ʿilal see ʿilla ilġāʾ 95–96, 184, 195 ilḥāq 31, 138, 147–152, 219, 222 ʿilla/ʿilal vii–ix, 56–68, 81, 94, 153, 173, 246–247, 250, 264, 266, 268, 274, 277, 300, 302–303 ʿilla ğāmiʿa 56–57 — mutaʿaddiya 65 — qiyāsiyya 65 ʿillat farq 64 — al-ʿilla 65 — istit ̠qāl 247 — labs 246 ʿilal uwal/t ̠awānī/t̠awālit̠ 266 istiqṣāʾ al-ʿilla 247 ʿilm/ʿulūm 8, 16 ʿilm al-maʿānī 190–91, 283 ʿilm al-muḫ āt ̣ab bihi see muḫ āt ̣ab ʿilm al-naḥw see naḥw ʿilm al-tafsīr see tafsīr iltibās see labs iʿmāl 291 imāla 7, 31, 103, 201 ʿināya 284–287, 296 inšāʾ/inšāʾī 216, 269–272 iʿrāb 40, 44, 87, 94, 120, 125, 153–161, 250, 273, 300–302, 305 išāra 305 ism/ismī 4, 10, 34, 66, 119, 125, 129, 152, 162, 165, 182–183, 294 ism āla 34 — ʿayn 35 — fāʿil 89, 122 — fiʿl 90 — lā l-mufrad 160, 228 — mafʿūl 89, 122 — maʿnā 35

ism fiʿl 162 ism mubālaġa see mubālaġa isnād 57, 119, 121, 195 istaḫ affa 59 istifhām 10, 63, 126, 162, 174–175, 186, 195, 255–256, 258 ištiġāl 35 istiġnāʾ 57 istiḫ fāf 57, 59, 129, 169, 174 istiʾnāf 180 ištiqāq 149 istiqṣāʾ al-ʿilla 247 istit̠nāʾ 10, 289 maʿnā l- — 173 istit̠qāl 247 it̠bāt 297 ʿiwaḍ 9, 57, 241 kad̠ ib 270 kāffa 95 kalām 4, 10, 43, 45–46, 119, 146, 207, 226, 238, 245 — al-ʿArab 20, 251, 300 — al-Rūm 268 — al-Zanğ 268 aṣl al- — 99 faṣīḥ al- — 281 wağh al- — 199 kalima 10 kāna l-tāmma 131 karāhiya 57 kasr/kasra 24, 33, 51, 53–54, 63, 65, 86, 93, 103, 105, 114–115, 154, 156–157, 240, 247 kat ̠īr 16, 54, 61, 134 kat ̠ra 61 kurrāsa 226 lā l-nāfiya li-l-ğins 93 lā l-tabriʾa 93 lā yağūz 20, 43, 184 lā yastaqīm 204 lā yuskat ʿalayhi 208 labs 64, 204, 221, 266 ʿillat — 246 lafẓ/lafẓī ix, 8, 89, 97, 170–191, 194, 196, 251, 272–273, 278–280, 283, 288, 290–296, 305 lafẓī ʿāmil/ʿawāmil 89–91, 97, 278, 282, 291–294 laġw 9 laḥn 3–5, 9, 84, 199, 252, 300–302 — fāḥiš 244

index of terms lām al-amr 163, 243 lām al-ğarr 163 lām al-ibtidāʾ 64 lām al-taʿağğub 163 lamḥ al-aṣl 197 ʿadam — 197 laysa fī kalām al-ʿArab 225 luġa 10–11, 14, 25, 30, 235, 240, 273, 306 — fāšiya 154 — ğayyida 24 — radīʾa 103, 115, 157, 181 ʿalā — 154 fiqh al- — 11 ğam al- — see ğamʿ luġawī 298 lukna 304 lut ̠ġa 304 mā ʿālağta bihi 34 maʿānī see ʿilm al-maʿānī maʿānī l-naḥw 296 maʿāyib 199 mabnī 73, 101, 105, 154–155, 157–160 mabnī ʿalā l-fiʿl 74 māḍī 10 maʿdūl 54, 135, 227–229 — ʿan aṣlihi 161, 227 — ʿan ḥaddihi 161, 227 — ʿan wağhihi 227 mafāḍiḥ 199 mafāḥiš 199 mafhūm 303 mafʿūl bihi 292 mafʿūl li-ağlihi 57, 292 mafʿūl maʿahu 92 mafʿūl mut ̣laq 92, 292 mağāz 279 mağhūr 115 mağrūr lafẓan marfūʿ/manṣūb maḥallan 97 mağrūrāt 92 mağzūmāt 92 maḥall 81, 166–167 maḫ āriğ 301 maḥdūd 228 — ʿan aṣlihi 228 — ʿan wağhihi 228 maḥd̠ ūfāt 265 mahmūs 115 malaka 250 maʿmūl/maʿmūlāt 84, 88, 124–125, 129, 173, 196, 229–230, 295

331

maʿnā/maʿnawī ix–x, 10, 64, 89, 149, 170–191, 194, 196, 251, 261, 272–273, 278–280, 283–285, 288, 290–297, 304–305 maʿnā l-fāʾ 173 — l-fiʿl 173 — ḫ āṣs ̣ al-ḫ āṣs ̣ 305 — l-istit̠nāʾ 173 — l-muḍāriʿ 173 — l-mustafham ʿanhu 173 — l-nakira wa-l-tanwīn 173 — l-naṣb 173 — l-qasam 173 — l-taʿağğub 173 — l-yamīn 173, 189 maʿnawī ʿāmil/ʿawāmil 89–91, 278, 282, 291–293 ḥaml ʿalā l-maʿnā 280 ism maʿnā 35 maʿānī l-naḥw 296 naqḍ al-maʿnā see naqḍ manbaha 106 mankūr 204 manṣūb ʿalā nazʿ al-ḫ āfiḍ 197 manṣūbāt 92 mant ̣iq 245 manzila 9, 62–63, 77, 113, 117, 144, 160, 166–167, 227 — bayn al-manzilatayn 132 bi-manzilat al-aṣwāt 229 bi-manzilat ism wāḥid 167, 198, 228 maqāyīs 290 maqṣūd ilayhi 293 marfūʿāt 92 maʿrifa 118, 120, 182 — tāmma 162 masāʾil 140, 237, 242, 248–249, 255–257 al-mas’ala l-zunbūriyya 298 maṣdar/maṣādir 89, 122, 152, 181–182, 188 ḥarf maṣdarī 262 maṣrūf 221 mat ̠al see amt ̠āl maʿt ̣ūf 10, 293 mawālī 3 mawḍiʿ 9, 73, 91, 96–97, 145–146, 166–167, 176, 182, 217, 224, 227, 281 — ibtidāʾ 228 mawḍūʿ 242 mawṣūl 163 mit ̠āl see amt ̠ila muʾaḫ ḫ ar 88

332

index of terms

mubālaġa 124–125 mubham 229 mubtadaʾ 75–76, 90–91, 121, 136, 198, 270, 291–292 mubtadaʿ 20 muḍāf 58, 73 muḍāriʿ 33, 125, 291–292 maʿnā l- — 173 muḍmar 70, 80, 175 mufīd 203, 287 mufrad 73 ism lā l- — 228 munādā — 160, 228 muḥāl 9, 202 muḫ āt ̣ab 191–207 ʿilm al-—bihi 129, 174 muḥdat ̠ 20, 242 mulḥaq bi-l-asmāʾ 124 mulḥaq bi-ğamʿ al-mud̠ akkar/ al-muʾannat ̠ 154–155 mulḥaq bi-l-mut̠annā 159 muʿmal 86 munādā mufrad 160, 228 munkar 54 muʿrab 73, 93, 125, 154–157, 159, 161 mušāfaha 26 mustahğan 199 mustaqbal 10 mustaqīm 9 mustat̠nā 178, 265 — minhu 178 mustawdaʿ 44 mutakallim 191–207 muʿtall 109–110 mutamakkin 159 ġayr — 156, 229 mut ̠annā 159 mut ̣baq 116 mutlaʾibb 54, 61 mut ̣t ̣arid 54, 61, 134 muwallad/muwalladāt 20, 41–42 muẓhar 80, 175 naʿata 10 nādir/nawādir viii, 44–45 nafy 194, 255–256, 258, 297 nağr 275 naḥw 4, 8, 11, 14, 19, 30–32, 118, 190–191, 235, 273, 283–284, 296, 298 ʿawīṣ al- — 303 maʿānī l- — 296 naḥwī 298, 302 nahy 62–63, 126, 174–176, 212, 258, 270

nāʾib fāʿil 34, 57 nakira 118, 120, 182 — mawṣūfa 163 maʿnā l- — wa-l-tanwīn 173 naqḍ 64 — al-maʿnā 227, 266 ʿadam — al-maʿnā 65, 72, 74, 78, 183 nāqiṣ 131 naql 36 naṣb 4, 6, 33, 73, 86, 93, 154, 173, 176, 195, 278 ʿawāmil al- — 86 maʿnā l- — 173 tanwīn — 208 umm ḥurūf al- — 79 nāṣib/nawāṣib 75, 87 nāsiḫ /nawāsiḫ 35, 87 naṣs ̣ 261 naʿt 10, 293 nawʿ 178–179 nawādir see nādir naẓīr 247 naẓm 283, 288, 296 asrār al- — 296 nidāʾ 73, 167–169, 194, 209 nisba 48, 60, 89, 109, 222 niṣba 305 nisyān 201 niyya 10, 70, 80–81, 98, 108 nudba 64, 167 alif al- — 64 qabīḥ x, 9, 15, 59, 103, 173, 181–184, 187, 227, 251 qāfiya 43, 110 qalīl 16, 39, 44, 103, 151, 157, 182 qamarī 35 qasam 63 lām al- — 163 maʿnā l- — 173 qaṣd (general usage) 274 qaṣd (in Suhaylī’s usage) 293 qawānīn al-mant ̣iq al-ʿaqliyya 251 qawānīn naḥwiyya 250 qawl 10, 271–272 aqyas al-qawlayni 39 qirāʾa/ qirāʾāt 5–7, 14, 23–24, 36, 156, 243 qīsa 50 qiyās/qiyāsī vii–x, 9, 12–13, 19–20, 36–37, 47–57, 61–63, 66, 68, 70, 81, 98–99, 101–105, 110, 112–113, 121, 134–136, 138–139, 145, 152, 157,

index of terms 173–174, 178, 180–181, 195, 200, 207, 215, 221, 227, 232, 236–244, 247, 249, 261–262, 264, 267–268, 275 qiyās mustamirr 48 — mut ̣ṭarid 239 — riyāḍī 218 haqīqat al- — 237 ʿilla qiyāsiyya 65 manhağ al- — 237 qubḥ 145, 182 Qurʾān al-naḥw vii, 1 quwwa ix, 113, 116–117, 122–126, 131, 141, 261, 288 radd ilā l-aṣl 109–111 radīʾ 39, 98, 103, 157, 181, 227, 241, 251 luġa radīʾa 103, 115, 157, 181 wağh — 137 raf ʿ 4, 33, 86, 93, 154, 173, 176, 195, 278 rāfiʿ 75–76, 120 riwāya/riwāyāt 3, 5, 8, 13, 25, 29, 35, 67, 233, 239–240, 242–243, 252, 265, 274, 280, 299 rubāʿī 34 saʿat al-kalām 9, 129, 174, 204, 279 šād̠ d̠ 6, 44, 54, 98, 103, 227 sadda masadda 271 sağiyya 67 šāhid see šawāhid šāʾin 199 sākin 247 salīqiyya 275 samʿ 35 samāʿ viii–ix, 15, 35–47, 51–53, 56, 68, 80, 152, 215, 236–241, 244, 262 samiʿa 35 šāmsī 35 ṣanʿa 7 šanīʿ 199 ṣarf 31, 235, 258 šart ̣ 9, 162 ṣawāb 199 šawād̠ d̠ see šād̠ d̠ šawāhid x, 37–38, 41–42, 44, 106, 133, 140–141, 153, 155–156, 172, 180, 192, 207–215, 217–218, 222, 227, 232, 235, 239, 242–243, 250, 252, 254, 257–258, 261, 272, 289–292, 299, 303 ṣidq 270

333

ṣifa 10, 34, 119, 162–163, 180, 183, 269, 272 — mušabbaha 89, 123 ṣīġa 35 ṣila 10, 262, 269, 271–272 ṣināʿa 250 šiʿr 43, 46 širka 189 sukūn 66–67, 87, 101, 115, 240, 247 taʿaddā ilā maf ʿūl 124 taʿağğub 10, 162, 195 lām al- — 163 maʿnā l- — 173 t ̣abʿ 267 tafsīr 6–7 ʿilm al- — 191 taftīš 237 taḥḍīd 258 taḫ fīf 59–61, 129, 169, 174, 241, 266, 277 taʾḫīr 61, 173, 284–287, 296 taḥqīq 69 taḥqīr 15 takrīr 173 ṭāla l-kalām 59, 61, 114, 266 ṭalab 258 taʿlīl x, 56–57, 65, 68, 232, 236, 244, 247, 264–267, 303 tamakkun 33, 113 ʿadam — 113 ašadd tamakkunan 118–119 tamannī 63, 255, 258 tamt ̠īl 70, 77, 81, 88, 108, 144, 195, 227, 296 tamyīz 34, 163 tanāzuʿ 34, 287 tanbīh 169 taʾnīt ̠ ḥaqīqī 241 tankīr 173 tanwīn 58, 173 — naṣb 208 maʿnā l-nakira wa-l- — 173 taqdīm 284–287, 296 taqdīr vii–x, 14, 56, 64, 68–83, 89, 94, 108, 119, 128–129, 152, 174–178, 180, 183, 195, 200, 219, 232, 254, 263–270, 272, 276–277, 299 tarağğī 258 tarḫīm 43, 60, 110, 167, 169 taʿrīf 173 tašabbut ̠ 295 taṣarruf 130–131, 141, 287–288 — al-ʿāmil 244

334

index of terms

tasmiya 220, 222 taṣrīḥ 276 taswiya 226 hamzat al- — 226 tawahhama/tawahhamū 200–201 tawahhum 199–201, 252–254 tawkīd 97 lām al- — 163 t ̣ibāʿ 67 — al-ʿArab 7 t ̠iqal 48, 61, 113, 117, 277 t ̣ūl al-kalām 61, 271 t ̠ulāt ̠ī 34 turīd 108 ʿulūm see ʿilm umarāʾ al-kalām 45 umm/ummahāt 79, 80, 127–128 umm ḥurūf al-ğazāʾ 79, 127, 143 — ḥurūf al-naṣb 79 ummahāt al-zawāʾid 127 uṣūl see aṣl ʿuṣūr al-iḥtiğāğ 40, 42, 242 wāḍiʿ 274 wağh 16, 98, 199, 227 — radīʾ 137 — al-kalām 199 aqyas al-wağhayni 39

maʿdūl ʿan wağhihi 227 maḥdūd ʿan wağhihi 228 wahm 199, 300 waqf 31, 86, 93, 154, 201 waṣafa 10 waṣf/waṣfī 34, 195 wazn 31, 149 yağūz fī l-šiʿr 45 yaḥsun ʿalayhi l-sukūt 260 yaḫtall 222 yaḥtamil al-šiʿr 45–46 yaltabis 64 yaʿnī 10 yanwī 279 yazūl ʿanhu 87 yubnā ʿalayhi 91 yuğrūna 48 yurīd/yurīdūna 108, 279 yušabbihūna 48 ẓāhir 299 zāʾid 97, 224, 300 zamān 293 ẓann 184–185 ẓarf 33, 92, 162, 165 zawāʾid 114, 151 ummahāt al- — 127 ziyāda 31, 100, 148–149, 219, 224

INDEX OF QURʾĀNIC QUOTATIONS Q. 1:5 Q. 2:23 Q. 2:150 Q. 2:187 Q. 4:152 Q. 5:38 Q. 5:95 Q. 6:27 Q. 7:10 Q. 9:3 Q. 9:108 Q. 11:47 Q. 11:72 Q. 11:78 Q. 12:31 Q. 13:35 Q. 16:30

293 141 140 281 130n 7n 146 7n 244 3 140 144–145 295 7n, 244 37, 132n 130n 206

Q. 18:2 Q. 19:69 Q. 20:63 Q. 24:2 Q. 30:36 Q. 34:10 Q. 34:11 Q. 35:28 Q. 36:40 Q. 37:147 Q. 41:17 Q. 41:46 Q. 56:21–22 Q. 63:10 Q. 72:13 Q. 75:4 Q. 90:14–15

156 24n 155 7n 146–147n 7n 130n 297 277 140 36 130n 65 252–253 146 15 218

STUDIES IN SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS 3. Corré, A.D. The Daughter of My People. Arabic and Hebrew Paraphrases of Jeremiah 8.13-9.23. 1971. ISBN 90 04 02552 9 5. Grand’Henry, J. Les parlers arabes de la région du Mza¯ b (Sahara algérien). 1976. ISBN 90 04 04533 3 6. Bravmann, M.M. Studies in Semitic Philology. 1977. ISBN 90 04 04743 3 8. Fenech, E. Contemporary Journalistic Maltese. An Analytical and Comparative Study. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05756 0 9. Hospers, J.H. (ed.). General Linguistics and the Teaching of Dead Hamito-Semitic Languages. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Groningen, 7th-8th November 1975, on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Semitic Studies and Near Eastern Archaeology of the State University at Groningen. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05806 0 12. Hoftijzer, J. A Search for Method. A Study in the Syntactic Use of the Hlocale in Classical Hebrew. With the collaboration of H.R. van der Laan and N.P. de Koo. 1981. ISBN 90 04 06257 2 13. Murtonen, A. Hebrew in its West Semitic Setting. A Comparative Survey of Non-Masoretic Hebrew Dialects and Traditions. Part I. A Comparative Lexicon. Section A. Proper Names. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07245 4 Section Ba. Root System: Hebrew Material. 1988. ISBN 90 04 08064 3 Section Bb. Root System: Comparative Material and Discussion. Sections C, D and E: Numerals under 100, Pronouns, Particles. 1989. ISBN 90 04 08899 7 14. Retsö, J. Diathesis in the Semitic Languages. A Comparative Morphological Study. 1989. ISBN 90 04 08818 0 15. Rouchdy, A. Nubians and the Nubian Language in Contemporary Egypt. A Case of Cultural and Linguistic Contact. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09197 1 16. Murtonen, A. Hebrew in its West Semitic Setting. A Comparative Survey of Non-Masoretic Hebrew Dialects and Traditions. Part 2. Phonetics and Phonology. Part 3. Morphosyntactics. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09309 5 17. Jongeling K., H.L. Murre-van den Berg & L. van Rompay (eds.). Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax. Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09520 9 18. Cadora, F.J. Bedouin, Village, and Urban Arabic. An Ecolinguistic Study. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09627 2 19. Versteegh, C.H.M. Arabic Grammar and Qur"a¯ nic Exegesis in Early Islam. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09845 3 20. Humbert, G. Les voies de la transmission du Kita¯ b de SÊbawayhi. 1995. ISBN 90 04 09918 2 21. Mifsud, M. Loan Verbs in Maltese. A Descriptive and Comparative Study. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10091 1 22. Joosten, J. The Syriac Language of the Peshitta and Old Syriac Versions of Matthew. Syntactic Structure, Inner-Syriac Developments and Translation Technique. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10036 9 23. Bernards, M. Changing Traditions. Al-Mubarrad’s Refutation of SÊbawayh and the Subsequent Reception of the Kita¯ b. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10595 6

24. Belnap, R.K. and N. Haeri. Structuralist Studies in Arabic Linguistics. Charles A. Ferguson’s Papers, 1954-1994. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10511 5 25. Talmon R. Arabic Grammar in its Formative Age. Kita¯ b al-"Ayn and its Attribution to ]alÊl b. Ah.mad. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10812 2 26. Testen, D.D. Parallels in Semitic Linguistics. The Development of Arabic la- and Related Semitic Particles. 1998. ISBN 90 04 10973 0 27. Bolozky, S. Measuring Productivity in Word Formation. The Case of Israeli Hebrew. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11252 9 28. Ermers, R. Arabic Grammars of Turkic. The Arabic Linguistic Model Applied to Foreign Languages & Translation of #Abu- ayya-n al-#AndalusÊ’s Kita-b al-"Idra-k liLisa-n al-"Atra-k. 1999. ISBN 90 04 113061 29. Rabin, Ch. The Development of the Syntax of Post-Biblical Hebrew. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11433 5 30. Piamenta, M. Jewish Life in Arabic Language and Jerusalem Arabic in Communal Perspective. A Lexical-Semantic Study. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11762 8 31. Kinberg, N. ; Versteegh, K. (ed.). Studies in the Linguistic Structure of Classical Arabic. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11765 2 32. Khan, G. The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought. Including a Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis of the Diqduq of "Abå Ya#qåb Yåsuf ibn NåÈ on the Hagiographa. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11933 7 33. Zammit, M.R. A Comparative Lexical Study of Qur"§nic Arabic. ISBN 90 04 11801 2 (in preparation) 34. Bachra, B.N. The Phonological Structure of the Verbal Roots in Arabic and Hebrew. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12008 4 35. Åkesson, J. Arabic Morphology and Phonology. Based on the Mar§È al-arw§È by AÈmad b. #AlÊ b. Mas#åd. Presented with an Introduction, Arabic Edition, English Translation and Commentary. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12028 9 36. Khan, G. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12863 8 37. Khan, G., Ángeles Gallego, M. and Olszowy-Schlanger, J. The Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought in its Classical Form. A Critical Edition and English Translation of al-Kit§b al-K§fÊ fÊ al-LuÇa al-#Ibr§niyya by "Abå al-Faraj H§rån ibn al-Faraj. 2 Vols. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13272 4 (Set), ISBN 90 04 13311 9 (Vol. 1), ISBN 90 04 13312 7 (Vol. 2) 38. Haak, M., De Jong, R., Versteegh, K. (eds.). Approaches to Arabic Dialects. A Collection of Articles presented to Manfred Woidich on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13206 6 39. Takács, G. (ed.). Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in Memoriam W. Vycichl. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13245 7 40. Maman, A. Comparative Semitic Philology in the Middle Ages. From Sa#adiah Gaon to Ibn Barån (10th-12th C.). 2004. ISBN 90 04 13620 7 41. Van Peursen, W.Th. The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13667 3 42. Elgibali, A. Investigating Arabic. Current Parameters in Analysis and Learning. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13792 0 43. Florentin, M. Late Samaritan Hebrew. A Linguistic Analysis of Its Different Types. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13841 2 44. Khan, G. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and \alabja. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13869 2 45. Wellens, I. The Nubi Language of Uganda. An Arabic Creole in Africa. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14518 4 46. Bassiouney, R. Functions of Code Switching in Egypt. Evidence from Monologues. 2006. ISBN 90 04 14760 8

47. Khan, G. Semitic Studies in Honour of Edward Ullendorff. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14834 5 48. Mejdell, G. Mixed Styles in Spoken Arabic in Egypt. Somewhere between Order and Chaos. 2006. ISBN-10: 90 04 14986 4, ISBN-13: 978 90 04 14986 1 49. Ditters, W.E. and Motzki, H. (eds.). Approaches to Arabic Linguistics. Presented to Kees Versteegh on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16015 6 50. Zewi, T. Parenthesis in Biblical Hebrew. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16243 3 51. Baalbaki, R. The Legacy of the Kit§b. SÊbawayhi’s Analytical Methods within the Context of the Arabic Grammatical Theory. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16813 8