Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
In a recent article, I argued that the study of early Arabic grammar of the second and third centuries A.H. should be based on the sources of that era, and not on the work of the later grammarians, as these often do not report the real stand of a particular grammarian on a particular issue, and more often misunderstand certain early grammatical concepts, or use their own terminology rather than the older one to elucidate them. The problem becomes more acute when we find that many modern scholars can still only see early Arabic grammar through the eyes of the later grammarians, beginning with the fourth-century figures and probably ending with Suyṭ. Learning about early grammar from later sources is inescapable, given the scarcity of existing second- and third-century sources, but this is nevertheless permissible only if we do not impose the method, and especially the terminology, of the later authors on early grammar.
1 Arab grammatical controversies and the extant sources of the second and third centuries A.H., in al-Qḍ, W., ed. Studia Arabica et Islamica: Festschrift for Iḥsn 'Abbs (Beirut, 1980), 126Google Scholar
2 al-jann, Tathqf al-lisn wa-talgḥ, ed. 'A. Maṭar (Cairo, 1966, 123, 299, but especially p. 191, where the whole bb is explained by resorting to tawahhumGoogle Scholar
3 Laṥn al-'awamm, ed. R., 'Abd al-Tawwb (Cairo, 1964), 19Google Scholar
4 Durrat al-ghawwṣ, (ed.) Ibrahim, M. A. (Cairo, 1975), 4, 140Google Scholar
5 Ibid., 16, 51, 93, 129, 252
6 Ibid., 48, 934, 116, 157
7 Ibid., 93
8 Ibid., 48
9 Ibid., 51
10 Ibid., 48
11 Ibid., 93
12 Ibid., 116
13 Ibid., 212
14 For other occurrences of the term awhm, see Ibid., 36, 56, 81, 92, 100, 109, 198, 202, 224, 229, 267, 269, 270, 280
15 Ibid., 17374, 21213. 230, 246, 252, 256
16 Ibid., 231
17 Ibid., 100, 278
18 Ibid., 253
19 See below, 243 f
20 Kitb, I, 19294 (reference will be made here to the Blq edition)
21 Ibid., I, 32425; cfMubarred, , Kitb al-muqtaḍab, ed. 'Uḍayma, M. Ἁ. (Cairo, 196369; hereafter Muqtaḍab), IV, 22426;Google ScholarAstarbdh, , Sharḥ kfiyat ibn al-Ḥjib (Istanbul, A.H. 1310), I, 136 ffGoogle Scholar; andYaἹsh, Ibn, Sharḥ al-Mufaṣṣal (Cairo, n.d.), I, 128Google Scholar
22 sharḥ al-Mufaṣṣal, loc. cit
23 Lexique-index du Kitb de sibawayhi (Paris, 1976), WHM
24 see my notes on taqdir in Some aspects of harmony and hierarchy in Sbawayhi's grammatical analysis, ZAL, 2, 1979, 7 ff
25 Kitb, I, 17781
26 Ibid., I, 83, 154, 290. 418, 429, 452; II, 278
27 Ibid., I, 452
28 Ibid., I, 237; cf. II, 21314. See also Muqtaḍab, II, 219; Sharḥ ibn ἉAql, ed. Ἁbd al-Hamd, M. M., (2nd. ed., Cairo, n.d.), II, 460Google Scholar; and Hishm, Ibn, Awḍaḥ al-maslik il Alfiyyat ibn Mlik, ed. al-Ḥamd, M. M. ḉAbd, (5th ed., Beirut, 1979), IV, 31314Google Scholar
29 Kitb, II, 194; cf. Muqtaḍab, II, 213
30 Ibid., II, 362, and Mtiqtaḍab, II, 98. See also Mzin, al-Taṣrif (with Ibn Jinn's al-Munṣif), ed. I. Muṣṭafa, and . Amn (Cairo, 195460), I, 276 if.; and Jinni, Ibn, al-Khaṣ'iṣ, ed. Najjr, M. A. (Cairo, 195256), I, 99, 124, 394Google Scholar
31 Ibid., I, 192
32 al-Munṣif, I, 276 ff.; cf. al-Khaṣ'iṣ, I, 99, and Suyṭ, al-Iqtirḥ fi'ilm uṣl al-naḥw, ed. A. M. Qsim (Cairo, 1976), 59 (p. 25 in Hyderabad's edition)
33 Instead ud;uh from a final weak verb, da'; see Kitb, II, 278
34 It should be stressed here again that id'ih itself, according to our interpretation, is accepted by Sibawayhi just as halk is
35 Or Ṣirma al-Anṣr, as in Kitb itself, I, 154; cf. Shantamari's Taḥṣl 'ayn al-dhahab in Kitab's margin, I, 154. The line has been also attributed to Rawḥa al-Anṣr see Baghdd, , Khiznat al-adab wa-lubb lubb lisn al-'arab (Blq, 1299), III, 666Google Scholar
36 Kitb, I, 429
37 See, for example, I, 154, where he uses t h e line to interpret the permissibility of a rather unusual line by RἹ by restoring an elided kna; see also I, 418, where he interprets, through this line, the use of the subjunctive after f' (due to t h e an muḍmara) be resorting to the concept of niyya (intention), where the an is intended by t h e speaker as the bi preceding sbiq in the line
38 I, 290. It should be noted here also that the infrequency of such usage is, most probably, the main criterion for its unacceptability
39 It may be added that if the line by Zuhayr were considered ghalaṭ by Sbawayhi, a number of other lines associated with it in the Kitb and other sources must also be considered as such, while there is not the slightest indication of this. These include Farazdaq's line (or al-Akhwaṣ al-Riyḥ's):
mash'imu lays muṣliḥna 'ashratanwa-l n'ibin ili bi-baynin ghurbuh (Ibid., I, 83, 154, 418), and Farazdaq's line:
wa-m zurtu Salm an takna ḥabbatanilayya wa-l daynin bi-h an ṭlibuh (Ibid., I, 418). See also al-Khaṣa'iṣ, II, 35354; Ibn al-Anbr, al-Inṣf fi mas'il al-khilf bayn al-naḥwiyyn al-Baṣriyyn wa-l-Kfiyyn, ed. M. M. bd al-Ḥamd, (3rd ed., Cairo, 1955), 193, 395; Ibn Hiahm, Mughn l-labb 'an hutvb al-a'rib, ed. M. M. bd al-Ḥamd (Cairo, n.d.), 478, 526; and Suyṭi, Sharḥ shawhid al-Mughn (Cairo, 1966), 871,885
40 Kitb, II, 367; cf. al-Khaṣ'iṣ, III, 277
41 al-Munṣif, I, 308
42 See also Kitb, I, 217, where ghalaṭ is reported as used by Khalil
43 Ibid., I, 290
44 Ibid., II, 127
45 Ibid., II, 426
46 Ibid., II, 146
47 Ibid., I, 225
48 Ibid., I, 75, 216, 218, 374, 446
49 Ibid., I, 32324; II, 58, 132; cf. I, 256, 266
50 Ibid., II, 95
51 Ibid., I, 461
52 Ibid., II, 96
53 See, for example, I, 216, 387, 392, 434, and especially 453; II, 24, 110, 156
54 Ma'n l-Qur'n, ed. A. Y. Najt (vol. I), M. . Najjr (vol. 2), A. I. Shalab and . N. Nṣif (vol. 3), (cairo, 195572; hereafter Ma'n), I, 33031; cf. I, 347; II, 159, 168; III, 41, 78, 109, 282. For other sources dealing with this point see p. 21 of my article cited in n. 1
55 Ma'n, II, 143
56 16:7
57 This seems to be an exclusively Kfan usage. Furthermore, fi'l can mean, in their terminology, active participle (Ma'n, III, 57), and even adjective (Ibid., II, 434)
58 Ibid., II, 97. Another example of this sense of tawahhum occurs on the same page, but concerning the verse 16: 8
59 18: 78. Note here his Kfan usage of naṣb instead of fatḥ
60 Ibid., II, 156
61 40:71
62 Ibid., III, 11
63 Ibid., I, 38990
64 See above, pp. 239
65 Ibid., I, 37374
66 See especially II, 756
67 Ibid., III, 21718
68 See especially I, 25253, where this is clearly formulated. For an equally clear formulation, seeMubarrad, , al-Kitb al-kmil, ed. Wright, W. (Leipzig, 186492), 163. 451Google Scholar
69 Ma'ni, II, 93
70 See above, pp. 23940
71 Ibid., II, 38586
72 37: 54
73 3: 75
74 4: 115
75 7: 111
76 Ibid., I, 223; cf. II, 75
77 It should be noted that the terms glunlaṭ and khaṭa' do not occur in the Ma'n sufficiently enough to enable us to determine their exact functions, and then to compare these with our results from the study of Sbawayhi (see above, pp. 23940); see, for ghalaṭ, Ma'n, I, 320, 459; II, 285, 386; and for khaṭa', see I, 223, II, 256, III, 218
78 See above, pp. 239 and 241
79 See above, pp. 238 and 242
80 See pp. 24 ff. of my article cited in n. 1 above
81 By later authors I mean those of the fourth century and after. It is unfortunate that Mubarrad (d. 285), who is the earliest major grammarian after Sbawayhi and Farr', does not use tawahhum in the technical sense used by his predecessors; see Muqtaḍab, II, 94; III, 289; IV, 293, where the term is used in a general, non-technical sense. As for ghalat and khaṭa', it can be shown that Mubarrad uses them interchangeably, contrary to Sbawayhi's usage. In Mugtaḍab I, 270, and IV, 191, we find the two terms used side by side and with the same meaning. Elsewhere, we find ghalat used either in the same sense as in Sbawayhi; i.e. to describe attested usage (Ibid., I, 123; II, 249), or in the sense Sbawayhi uses khaṭa'; i.e., to describe unattested forms which are posed by the grammarians (Ibid., II, 230), or the grammarians' explanations of attested usage (Ibid., II, 235; III, 71, 252). On the other hand, he usually uses khaṭa' in the same sense used by Sbawayhi; i.e., for description of unattested forms (Ibid., m, 249, 272, 279; iv, 267), and also for description of the grammarians' viewpoints (Ibid., I, 33; II, 131; III, 24, 225, 283; IV, 275); but he sometimes uses khaṭa' where Sbawayhi would, use ghalaṭ; i.e. to describe attested usage (Ibid., II, 171, 175). It could also be noted that Mubarrad, like Sbawayhi, uses ghalaṭ with the meaning of permutative of error, and usually with nisyn and istidrk; cf. I, 28, II, 63; III, 289, 305, IV, 297, 400
82 See above, pp. 236 and 238
83 al-Khaṣ'is, II, 353, 424
84 Mughn l-labb, 96, 460, 476, 478
85 Khiznat al-adab, III, 66566
86 Ibid., III, 666
87 See above, n. 39
88 Ibid., II, 140
89 p. 221
90 al-Inṣf, 191
91 Kitb, I, 290; cf. above, p. 238
92 Ibid., loc. cit.
93 Mughn l-labb, 478
94 Sharḥ al-Ushmn 'al Alfiyyat Ibn Mlik al-musamm Manhaj as-slik il Alfiyyat Ibn Mlik, ed. al-Ḥamd, M. M. bd (Cairo, 1955), 302Google Scholar
95 See, for example, bd al-Qdir al-Maghribi's articles on tawahhum al-aṣla and tawahhum al-ziyda in MajaUat majma' al-lugha al-'arabiyya, VII, 25760, 36174; IX, 615, which have, unfortunately, met with little enthusiasm from his colleagues
96 SeeḌayf, , al-Madris al-naḥwiyya (Cairo, 1968), 82Google Scholar where tawahhum is not distinguished from ghalaṭ. See also 'Udayma's note in Muqtaḍab I, 123. Similarly, Dimashqiyya, al-Munḍalaqt al-ta'sisiyya wa-l-fanniyya il l-naḥw al-'arab (Beirut, 1978), 155, uses wahm in the same sense as khaḍa'
