Early Arabic Grammatical Theory: Heterogeneity & Standardization

EARLY ARABIC GRAMMATICAL THEORY AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Editor E. F...

Author: Jonathan Owens

170 downloads 1140 Views 25MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

EARLY ARABIC GRAMMATICAL THEORY

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Editor E. F. KONRAD KOERNER (University of Ottawa)

Series III - STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE SCIENCES

Advisory Editorial Board Ranko Bugarski (Belgrade); Jean-Claude Chevalier (Paris) H.H. Christmann (Tübingen); Boyd H. Davis (Charlotte, N.C.) Rudolf Engler (Bern); Hans-Josef Niederehe (Trier) R.H. Robins (London); Rosane Rocher (Philadelphia) Vivian Salmon (Oxford); Aldo Scaglione (New York)

Volume 53

Jonathan Owens Early Arabic Grammatical Theory Heterogeneity and Standardization

EARLY ARABIC GRAMMATICAL THEORY HETEROGENEITY AND STANDARDIZATION

JONATHAN OWENS University of Bayreuth

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA 1990

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Owens, Jonathan. Early Arabic grammatical theory / Jonathan Owens. p. cm. - (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series III, Studies in the history of the language sciences, ISSN 0304-0720; v. 53) Includes bibliographical references. 1. Arabic language ~ Grammar -- History. I. Title. II. Series. PJ6106.094 1989 492'.75'09 - dc20 90-57 ISBN 90 272 4538 X (alk. paper) CIP © Copyright 1990 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

For my parents

vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS x — > y x governs y § Quranic passage, ( / ) = (chapter/verse of Qur'aan) Ag agent AP active participle Ap appendix art article Ax Axfash CC classificatory conjunct Com comment comp complement def definite f feminine Far Farra' inf (case) inflection u-inf = u-inflection, nominative or indicative a-inf = a-inflection, accusative or subjunctive i-inf = i-inflection, genitive 0-inf = 0-inflection, jussive m masculine M musnad MI musnad 'ilayhi Mub Mubarrid (or Mubarrad) NC noun complementation Obj object pl plural PP passive participle prep preposition pssd possessed pssr possessor Q (in glosses) question particle Q (or O ) + number (in text) = Arabic quote qual qualifier s = sh (alveopalatal fricative) S sentence Sar Sarraj sg singular Sib Sibawayh SNIP separation and non-identity principle Subj subject Top topic Zaj Zajjaj Zam Zamaxshari G emphatic consonant

viii

Arabic names are conventionally written without long vowel marks, hence 'Sibawayh' rather than the phonetically more accurate 'Siybawayh'. There is no reason why Arabic linguists should not be as much household names in modern linguistics as, say, Panini, whose name is often given in a conventionalized, westernized spelling. References to Sibawayh are, unless otherwise stated, to book I. Unless otherwise specified, Anbari' refers to Abu Barakat al-Anbari, author of the 'Insaaf.

PREFACE The Arabic grammatical tradition is remarkable for having organized a large amount of descriptive material within a sophisticated formal framework. The present study seeks to elucidate the early development of this system from a theory-internal perspective; it is mainly concerned with the development of the syntactic theory as a formal object, a system of rules. This endeavor is constituted of four sub-goals: a description of early developments, their periodization, their relation to the traditional accounts in terms of the Basran and Kufan schools, and their relation to modern linguistic theory. These goals represent self-sufficient ends, though it is hoped that the results here will be relevant to further questions, such as the relation between the Arabic and Greco-Syriac grammatical traditions. I have tried to give a detailed listing of page references in the original Arabic works, though do not claim to provide an exhaustive inventory of any source. In this context I might mention that the manuscript was sent to press before N. Kinberg's valuable lexicon of Farra's grammatical terms appeared; the papers of the second Nijmegen colloquium for the history of Arabic grammar have also appeared in print (Benjamins), though too late to be cited in their book form. This book was begun when I was a fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, whose support I would like to acknowledge. During this time I was generously hosted by Prof. Fischer of the University of Erlangen. I would like to thank Prof. Jamil Abun Nasr for his detailed comments on chapter 10, and for the criticisms and corrections of two anonymous readers. Ms. Inge Neuner gave much technical help in the preparation of the manuscript.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations and Conventions Preface

vii ix

1. Introduction 1. The problem 1.1 The schools 1.2 The data 1.3 The Quranic variants, the Qiraa'aat 1.4 The players 1.4.1 Major 1.4.1.1 Xalil bin Ahmad 1.4.1.2 Kisa'i 1.4.1.3 Sibawayh 1.4.1.4 Farra' 1.4.1.5 Axfash 1.4.1.6 Mubarrid 1.4.1.7 Tha'lab 1.4.1.8 Zajjaj 1.4.1.9 Sarraj 1.4.2 Minor writers 1.4.3 Other writers 1.5 Plan of the book 1.6 Odd remarks 1.6.1 When is terminology terminology? 1.6.2 Some conventions

1 1 1 3 5 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 12

2. Two General Points 2.1 Dependency 2.2 The i-inf (genitive) 2.3 Scope of study

13 13 14 17

3. Farra' as Linguist 3.1 'Asl 3.2 General rules 3.3 Position, context, mawdï 33.1 Invariable form 3.3.2 Sequence 3.3.3 Unusual or exceptional constructions 3.4 Analogical reasoning 3.5 Farra' on gender 3.6 Ma'aaniy l-Qur'aan: Farra' and Zajjaj 3.6.1 The issues 3.6.2 A comparison 3.6.2.1 Faatihal 3.6.2.2 Faatihal

19 19 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 28 29

xii

CONTENTS

3.6.2.3 Faatiha 7 3.6.2.4 al-Baqara 1 3.6.2.5 al'Baqara 2 3.6.2.6 One further example 3.7 Conclusion

30 30 31 31 33

4. Sibawayhi's Methodology 4.1 Sibawayhi's use of substitution 4.1.1 Grammatical function 4.1.2 Distribution of items 4.1.3 Form 4.1.4 Meaning 4.2 Techniques 4.2.1 Negative evidence 4.2.2 Item for item; item at position 4.2.3 Analogical substitution 4.2.4 Cue words 4.2.4.1 By cue word only 4.2.4.2 Cue word and function 4.2.5 Typical and less typical 4.2.5.1 Basic member of word class 4.2.5.2 Typical form 4.2.5.3 Typical position, typical class member 4.2.5.4 Simple and complex 4.3 Sibawayhand Sarraj 4.3.1 Class and substitution 4.3.2 Polish and methodology 4.3.2.1 Polish 4.3.2.2 Methodology 4.3.2.3 Matters of degree

35 35 36 37 39 40 41 41 42 43 45 46 46 48 48 48 49 50 51 51 52 52 53 53

5. Noun Complementation 5.1 Sarraj 5.1.1 tawkiyd, emphasis 5.1.2 na't, noun qualifier 5.1.3 badal or 'atf al-badal, substitute 5.1.4 'atf al-bayaan, classificatory conjunct (CC) 5.1.5 'atf or 'atf bi l-harf, conjunct 5.2 Sibawayh 5.2.1 tawkiyd, emphasis 5.2.1.1 Repetition 5.2.1.2 Lexical 5.2.2 'atf 5.2.3 sifa, noun qualifier 5.2.4 na't, qualifier 5.2.5 badal, substitute 5.2.6 siraak, coordination 5.2.7 tabi'a, follow 5.2.8 Tabular summary 5.3 Types of relation in Sibawayh's treatment of NC 5.3.1 Class inclusion

55 56 56 57 58 59 61 61 62 62 63 63 65 69 70 72 73 74 74 74

ARABIC GRAMMAR: THE ERA OF HETEROGENEITY

5.3.1.1 Complete 5.3.1.2 haal 5.3.2 Distinct categories 5.3.3 Free variation 5.3.3.1 Two terms, one class 5.3.3.2 One term, two classes 5.3.4 Unclear categorization 5.3.5 Summary of relations 5.4 General summary 5.5 Farra' 5.5.1 Three categories 5.5.2 'atf and nasaq, coordination..., 5.5.3 takriyr, repetition, substitution 5.5.4 tabi'a, agree 5.6 Axfash 5.7 Mubarrid, Tha'lab and others 5.8 The class of noun complementizers 5.8.1 Refinement of terminology 5.8.2 Which terms survive 5.8.2.1 Coordination, 'atf 5.8.2.2 tawkiyd, emphasis 5.8.2.3 badal 5.8.2.4 tabi'a 5.8.3 Classification and re-classification of items 5.8.3.1 'atf 5.8.3.2 na't/sifa 5.8.3.4 badal 5.8.4 Degree of change 6. Sibawayh and Farra' vs. Later Grammarians 6.1 'Isnaad 6.1.1 Possession: musnad = pssd, musnad 'ilayhi = pssr 6.1.2 M = verb, MI = agent 6.1.3 General remarks 6.2 The a-inf form 6.2.1 Direct object 6.2.1.1 Explicit mention 6.2.1.2 Transitivity, ta'diya 6.2.13 haal 6.2.1.4 Locative, darf. 6.2.2 Farra' 6.2.2.1 Governance, 'iyqaa1 6.2.2.2 Separation: qat', xuruwj, haal 6.2.3 Axfash 6.2.4 Mubarrid and his successors 6.2.5 The disappearance of the role of structural separation 6.3 Sequence of the tamyiyz (or the proper use of analogy)

xiii 74 76 77 79 79 80 81 81 83 84 84 85 86 89 ...91 93 95 95 99 99 99 100 100 100 100 101 102 102 103 103 104 105 106 107 110 110 110 110 111 115 115 116 119 120 121 124

xiv

CONTENTS

7. Farra' as Transitional Figure 7.1 The specifier, tamyiyz 7.1.1 Sibawayh 7.1.2 Farra' 7.1.3 Categorical and gradualistic development 7.1.4 The precision of Farra's terminology 7.2 The locative, darf, and sifa 7.2.1 Sibawayh 7.2.2 Farra' 7.2.3 Axfash 7.2.4 Mubarrid and Tha'lab 7.2.5 Later syntheses 7.2.6 A synthetic solution 7.3 Passive 7.3.1 Sibawayh 7.3.2 Farra' 7.3.3 Axfash 7.3.4 Mubarrid 7.3.5 Sarraj

127 127 128 130 135 136 141 141 144 148 148 149 151 151 151 153 155 155 155

8. Farra' and the Period of Heterogeneity 8.1 Meaning, structural categories and precision of terminology 8.2 Are terminological differences categorical differences? 8.2.1 waqa'a, governance 8.2.1.1 a-inf 8.2.1.2 i-inf 8.2.1.3 Verbal governors 8.2.1.4 'amal and waqa'a 8.2.2 Two types of pronouns 8.2.2.1 'imaad and fasl 8.2.2.2 'imaad and the damiyr il-sa'n : 8.2.3 Predicates 8.2.3.1 Governor of topic and comment 8.2.3.2 fi'l, predicate 8.2.3.3 Sentential predicates 8.3 Summary

157 157 160 162 162 164 164 164 166 166 168 170 170 172 174 177

9. Minor Writers 9.1 The linguists 9.2 MN 9.2.1 Sibawayh 9.2.2 Farra' 9.2.3 Unique 9.3 IbnKaysan 9.3.1 Sibawayh 9.3.2 Farra' 9.3.3 Both Sibawayh and Farra' 9.3.4 Later grammarians 9.3.5 Unique 9.4 Lughda 9.4.1 Sibawayh

179 179 181 182 183 184 185 185 186 186 187 187 187 187

ARABIC GRAMMAR: T H E E R A OF HETEROGENEITY

XV

9.4.2 Farra' 9.4.3 Sibawayh and Farra' 9.4.4 Unique 9.5 KJN 9.5.1 Sibawayh 9.5.2 Farra' 9.5.3 Sibawayh/Farra' 9.5.4 Unique 9.6 Tabular summary 9.7 Tha'lab and Abu Bakr al-Anbari 9.7.1 Tha'lab 9.7.2 Abu Bakr al-Anbari 9.8 Terminological and conceptual heterogeneity 9.9 Non-standard traditions 9.10 Dating works

188 188 188 189 190 190 192 192 193 196 196 197 199 200 201

10. The Development of the Basran and Kufan Schools 10.1 Sibawayh 10.2 Farra' 10.3 Linguists after Farra' 10.4 Zajjaj 10.4.1 Some basic data 10.4.2 Accuracy of Zajjaj's classification 10.5 From data to theory

203 203 204 206 208 208 210 213

11. The Structural Development of Early Arabic Syntactic Theory 11.1 The data 11.2 Technical questions 11.2.1 Notational and substantive variation 11.2.2 Continua of development 11.2.3 Differential classification of single features 11.2.4 Statistical dominance 11.2.5 Other modes of analysis 11.3 Periodization 11.4 The schools and linguistic data 11.5 Reconstruction 11.5.1 Farra' 11.5.2 Other writers 11.5.3 The earliest grammatical tradition 11.6 Principles of development 11.6.1 Organization, explicitness and generalization of descriptive classes 11.6.2 Formal or functional determinants 11.6.3 Semantic determinants 11.6.4 The logic of general principles 11.6.5 Two unifying themes 11.6.5.1 Positional autonomy 11.6.5.2 Reductionism 11.7 The early evolution of Arabic syntactic theory

221 221 224 224 225 225 226 226 227 227 229 230 233 233 234 235 237 238 238 240 240 240 242

xvi

CONTENTS

Appendix I 245 IA. Subject Matter of Ma'aaniy l-Qur'aan, Farra' and Zajjaj 245 IB. Harf in Morphology and Syntax 245 IC. The musnad and musnad 'ilayhi in Farra' 249 ID. The term sagala 251 IE. Noun complementation citations in Axfash 255 IF. Page references to §7.1.4 256 IG. Form and function of governed item in Farra's 'iyqaa' relation, vol. I 257 IH. References to Basra, Kufa and individual linguists in Tha'lab's Majaalis 257 IJ. References to Basrans and Kufans in first two volumes of Zajjaj's MQ 258 Appendix II Arabic Quotes Appendix III Arabic Linguists

261 273

References Primary Secondary

275 278

Index of Arabic Grammarians Index of Arabic Grammatical Terms Subject Index

285 287 291

I INTRODUCTION

1. The Problem

In a sense the historiography of Arabic grammatical theory suffers from an overabundance of data, for it possesses not only a fairly large corpusnd of original grammatical writing dating from as early as the late eighth century (2 century A. H.), but also a commentary on this tradition, an Arabic historiography as it were, that develops co-terminously with the descriptive writing. This tradition is independent of the grammatical writing itself in the sense that it represents the structure imposed by later scholars on the grammatical thought of earlier generations. It is on the other hand integrally part of the grammatical tradition for as soon as it is explicitly formulated it becomes part of a model that subsequent generations use to understand the grammatical writing of earlier scholars (cf. 10.5). A major challenge in understanding the development of Arabic grammatical theory is in defining to what extent the traditional representation accurately reflects the historical reality of the early Arabic grammatical period.

1.1 The Schools

In the standard tradition Arabic linguistic thinking is divided into three schools, the Basran, Kufan and Baghdadian, Basra and Kufa being the earliest islamic cultural centers in Iraq, and Baghdad the capital of the Abbasid empire. The classic presentation of this model was written by the twelfth century grammarian Anbari (cf. Troupeau 1962, Carter 1983b, Versteegh 1977 chapter 5, Talmon 1981, 1982, 1985). According to it linguistic thinking can be classified as either Basran or Kufan, or Baghdadian (=neo-Basran). The last is sometimes represented as synthesizing the viewpoints of the two earlier schools, though for reasons that will become apparent in the course of this book Basran and Baghdadian are effectively the same (Carter 1973b). The tenth century biobibliographer Ibn al-Nadim (115 ff.) offers an alternative three-fold classfication, Basran, Kufan and those who mixed elements from these two schools, though this interesting approach was largely abandoned by Ibn al-Nadim's successors (cf. Troupeau 1962: 399) and in any case the linguistic content of the "mixed" school was never fleshed out in any significant way. By and large the Basran and Kufans schools are represented by a fixed cast of linguists, Sibawayh (177/793), Axfash (215/815 or 221/835), Mazini (249/863), Mubarrid (285/898) and others for the Basrans, Kisa'i (183/799), Farra' (207/822) and Tha'lab (291/904) for the Kufans,

2

INTRODUCTION

though on any given point any linguist can align himself with ideas of the other school. The relevant issues are explicitly developed by each school, and Anbari in his classic work can render a final judgment on each issue. In all but 7 of the 121 questions discussed the decision goes in favor of the Basrans (cf. Versteegh 1977 §5, Bohas 1985: 124 ft, Owens 1988 §4.9 for sample questions). This Basran predominance is explained by the fact that they developed a highly efficient method of grammatical analysis based on the use of analogy. With this they developed linguistic hierarchies that were used to classify and explain all aspects of Arabic grammar (cf. Weil 1913: 7-28). Against this the Kufans relied to a greater degree on the citation of anomalous linguistic forms and textual examples in the analysis of a particular grammatical construction, used analogical reasoning to a lesser degree and generally attached less weight to strict methodological procedures in their argumentation (Weil 1913: 29-37). Given the Basrans alleged linguistic sophistication, it is small wonder that they should so often emerge triumphant in questions concerning formal grammar. As Anbari tells the story, Basra and Kufa represented historically real schools of grammatical theory just as much as generativists (in the Chomsky tradition) or systemicists (Halliday) or lexical functionalists (Bresnan) do today. There was diversity within each school, but this was less significant than the constrast to the ideas of the other school. Anbari's characterization, itself the product of a long genesis, has had an enduring impact on the conceptualization of Arabic linguistic thinking, with many linguists from both the Arabic (e.g. 'Udayma: 31) and western (Troupeau, 1961) traditions more or less accepting its accuracy. Nonetheless, the historical reality of these schools was challenged as early as the beginning of this century by the German scholar Gotthold Weil in an essay that is one of the classics of the western orientalist tradition. After summarizing Anbari's representation of the Basran and Kufan schools (cf. short presentation above) he makes three main observations. (1) Neither a Basran nor a Kufan school existed before the end of the ninth century, that is, until after the death of most of the Basran and Kufan protagonists (pp. 65, 73, 74). This is supported by two main points: (la) that the oral nature of disputation and research made it logistically difficult for different schools in two separate cities to develop consciously opposed models; Sibawayh and Farra', presumably the main protagonists of the Basran and Kufan schools never actually met (53, 59); (lb) the actual theoretical differences between the schools were not great (39) and on many issues Basrans and Kufans divided on other than strict party lines (51, 62-64). Thus even in Anbari's fairly dogmatic representation of the dispute it is not always clear who can be regarded as Basran and who Kufan. (2) The Basran and Kufan schools were created by a generation of linguists after Mubarrid (285/898) and represent more a systematization of grammar in the 4 th /10 th century than the actual grammatical thinking of the earlier 'Basran' and


3

4 th /10 th century than the actual grammatical thinking of the earlier 'Basran' and 'Kufan' grammarians (57, 58, 65, 80, 81). (3a) No real Kufan school existed, Farra' being the last to develop a characteristically 'Kufan' methodology1 (65, 73, 76, 77). (3b) The Basran school, or the synthesizing school of Baghdad as it was also known, was based on Sibawayhian methodology (77). Weil's analysis is remarkably prescient -- the first two points I think have largely been confirmed by subsequent research (cf. §10) - and while I will argue against (3a) and in part (3b) in subsequent chapters, it must be recalled that Weil himself did not have access to Farra's major text, Ma'aaniy l-Qur'aan, when he wrote his essay, nor to the work of many later grammarians. Weil thus rightly draws attention to the ahistorical nature of the Basran and Kufan schools, assigning as they do linguists to doctrines on a post facto basis. At the same time it would be inadvisable simply to dismiss the schools as a figment of the collective imagination of 9th and 10th century grammarians, for the question must be raised as to how precisely these two locations came to be universally identified with different grammatical traditions; put another way, if the schools are myths, is there nevertheless an historical basis for them (Versteegh 1977, 1987: 157, 158, Baalbaki 1981, Talmon 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986b, 1987)? Certainly a prerequisite to a finer characterization of the linguistic thinking during the earliest period is an adequate examination of relevant linguistic ideas, a definition of what they are and who held them. This has formed the basis of most of the significant research on the subject (e.g. Weil; more recently Baalbaki, Carter, Talmon and Versteegh) and this exercise will occupy the greater part of the present work. I propose to examine enough issues from different linguists that a general developmental typology of linguistic ideas can be constructed, whereby the association of linguists with certain sets of ideas will yield a periodization independent of a priori labels like Basran and Kufan.

1.2 The Data

I am mainly concerned with Arabic grammatical theory in the earliest era, conveniently represented as the period from Sibawayh (177/793), who wrote the earliest grammatical treatise, to Sarraj (316/928), who effectively developed the ultimate organizational technique for grammars (cf. 4.3). The nature of the linguistic theory earlier than this is accessible only via reconstruction (cf.§11.5); in

"Blieb Farra' und neben ihm auch in beschränktem Masse Kisa'i isoliert, und ihre Behauptungen und Begründungen Ansichten von einzelnen, die von niemandem vertieft, ausgebaut und vervollkommnet wurden" (Weil 1913: 65)

4

INTRODUCTION

the period after Sarraj there was relatively little change in the actual grammatical categories used or in the style of presentation, though there were significant developments in other areas of grammar, notably markedness theory (al-'usuwl) and pragmatics (e.g., the work of Jurjani, Sakkaki and 'Astarabadi). I only use material from extant grammatical sources. This puts the beginning point of the study at a stage beyond that distinguished by Belguedj (1973: 171) when the study of Arabic grammar was co-terminous with Quramc and poetic analysis. Although Sibawayh and particularly Farra' were intensely concerned to elucidate the Qur'aan and poetry, their sophisticated methodology reflects a grammatical theory grounded in concepts independent of any individual text. The term 'earlier era' refers to the period up to Sarraj (approximately, the beginning of the 4 th /10 th century, cf. 4.3). Its significance lies in the fact that it was during this time that the greatest amount of change, the greatest degree of development occurred in grammatical thinking. Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, it is also the era for which the smallest number of actual grammatical works exist. In fact, we have to date only two major treatises devoted exclusively to grammar, Sibawayh's Kitaab and Mubarriďs Muqtadab, though many more by various authors are reported in the bio-bibliographical literature. These two works themselves are very detailed, both over 900 pages long; indeed, Sibawayh's book is so detailed and accurate that it effectively serves as the basis of all later works on Arabic grammar, few other works approaching its comprehensiveness and few adding much new in the way of actual data. Other grammatical works from the period exist, and some will be reviewed in chapter 9, but even they stem mostly from the end of the period, from Mubarrid's time or later. This is not to say that nothing is known of the grammatical thinking in the intervening period. There is the occasional book on lexicography (e.g. works on al'addaad) and various short didactic treatises on odd topics, like that by Qutrub illustrating the differences between the short vowels in Arabic, or Farra's on gender (cf. 3.5). There also exist second hand reports about the ideas of linguists whose works are lost (or not yet found). All in all, however, these sources fail to provide anything like an adequate source for the linguistic ferment that took place from Sibawayh to Sarraj. What goes some way to saving the situation for present-day scholars are two Quranic treatises, one written by Farra', the other by Axfash. Both are entitled Ma'aaniy l-Quraan, The Meaning of the Qur'aan, both among the first books of this genre, a genre whose function it is to excerpt passages from the Qur'aan, passages ranging from a single word to two or (unusually) three lines, which contain problematic points of some sort. The style of these books is exemplified in some detail in 3.6. The problem can reside in any of a number of areas, the meaning of a word or phrase, the grammatical analysis of a certain construction, or variant morpho-phonological shapes of words. The discussion surrounding these points will include not only the author's own clarification, but also a discussion of what other scholars have to say, and often a critique of the alternative positions. Not uncommonly a problematic passage is explained by reference to a simpler, constructed example, quite like the 'John and Mary' sentences of modern linguistics, and through such clarification the theory behind the analysis becomes particularly clear. From such discussion we are able to learn something of Axfash's


5

theoretical precepts, and a good deal of Farra's. Of course, the selective nature of the subject means that a wholly comprehensive picture of their grammatical thinking, similar to what we have for Sibawayh, will escape us. Nonetheless, in over 1200 pages Farra' in particular manages to impart a good deal that is of import. Given this uneven distribution of early works available, it goes without saying that no book written today can claim to be comprehensive; quite obviously when statements are made about Sibawayh's or Farra's thinking for example one can base oneself with 100% certainty2 only on the existing works. Lost works like Farra's Huduwd could well turn up some day, altering ideas about his theories. And even if one had the complete output of the linguists the picture would still remain incomplete, for it can be assumed that observers as perceptive as the Arabic linguists would have been aware of and understood the ideas of their contemporaries, even if they themselves did not embrace all of them in 'print' ( = scribal copy, cf. Versteegh 1977, 1980: 141). With such caveats in mind, statements like "Sibawayh's analysis of x was..." should be understood as "so far as the material at our disposal allows us to conclude, Sibawayh's analysis of x can be interpreted as..."

13 The Quranic Variants, the Qiraa'aat

A special source of data is the Quranic variants. They consist of variant readings of the Quranic text, usually rather small differences like different ways of vocalizing a word, using a feminine rather than a masculine form, and so on. The readings themselves constitute raw data about Arabic and as such only indirectly contribute to our understanding of Arabic linguistic theory (cf. e.g. Beck 1946: 202, 1959: 357,365). Their importance lies in the fact that they are fairly often discussed and the different variants analyzed for their grammatical acceptability by, in particular the grammarians of the early era, most especially in books of the Ma'aaniy genre. For purposes of later reference it is relevant to give a thumbnail history of the readings; I follow the traditional account given in Dayf 1979, an account itself based on numerous classical sources. The Qur'aan was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in Arabic. It originally was not written down, being instead transmitted through recitation and memory. The Prophet himself was, of course, the first transmitter and it was said that once a year he recited the Qur'aan (as much as had been revealed) twice in the same way. At the same time he would also recite parts of it for various Arabian tribes, and he would do so in the local dialect of the tribe. Variations could thus arise from two sources, the faulty memory of those who heard the standard recitation, and the variants associated with different tribes.3 After Muhammad's death variants began to proliferate to such an extent that the third Calif 'Uthman (644-656) ordered one Actually less, given the factor of scribal errors in the transmission. 'Abd Allah (1984: 218) emphasizes that the Quranic variants and the presence of dialectical variants within the standard Quranic text are distinct phenomena. Nonetheless, a significant proportion of the qiraďaat variants are probably traceable to dialectical differences.

6

INTRODUCTION

Zayd ibn Thabit to compile a standard edition based on copies made by the first calif, Abu Bakr (632-634). Certain variations were allowed in this edition, but only in the Quraysh (Muhammad's) dialect. All other Quranic manuscripts were ordered destroyed, and the official written text, known as the Uthmanic codex, was sent to the centers of Arab power, Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Basra, Kufa and Yemen. Nevertheless, unofficial reading traditions continued, each with their own variants and peculiarities, and these formed the basis of a good dealrd ofth commentary by the Quranic exegetes, most notably by Farra'. As late as the 3 /9 century books were written collating as many as 25 different versions. However, even many Arabs who supported the different reading traditions against the standard written text put a limit on the number of reliable variants, and a core of seven variants, al-qiraďaat al-sab'a, were set down by Ibn Mujahid (245-324/859935). He remarked (45, 46) that a degree of standardization was needed among the variants because among the traditional variants were included those of readers who did not know correct rules of grammar, those who memorized badly, those who knew only the grammar, those who had learned from misinformed teachers, and so on. The seven reliable variants derive from the following readers, each of whom traces his version back to a companion of Muhammad. Reader

Place

Year of death

Nafi' Ibn Kathir 'Asim Hamza Kisa'i 'Ala' 'Amir

Madina Makka Kufa Kufa Kufa Basra Damascus

169/785 120/737 127/744 156/772 183/799 154/770 184/7984

1.4 The Players

In this section I will give brief biographical sketches of the major linguists whom I will be referring to, listing them in chronological order.

Mujahid himself recognized other reading traditions, writing a book of 'exceptional' (i.e. little used) variants that summarized traditions other than the seven. Burton (1977) has challenged the traditional account, arguing that the standard Quranic text in fact goes back to Muhammad; he also suggests that many, if not all, of the 'official' variants on the standard text also derive from a post-Uthmanic period. Given our concern for linguistic theory the exact historical status of the official Uthmanic text and the variants are of secondary importance. In any case, even if Burton is correct it would appear that Farra' and other commentators worked under the assumption that the written text stemmed from 'Uthman's time (cf. 'Abd Allah, 1984 and Neuwirth 1987:101-110 for general summaries).


7

In this context it is important to emphasize that an understanding of the evolution of Arabic theory should in the first instance rely on the association of ideas with individual linguists rather than with larger pre-conceived entities like the grammatical schools, which are the constructs whose existence one in part is attempting to establish (cf. § 10). While one can be fairly certain that certain ideas are associated with Farra' or Sibawayh or other individual linguists simply because the corporeal existence of these individuals and their works can be substantiated independently of the grammatical ideas they represent, the same does not hold for the 'schools', whose existence is effectively co-extensive with 5 their linguistic content, a content composed of the ideas of more than one linguist. 1.4.1. Major 1.4.1.1. Xalil bin Ahmad (101-175 (or 170)/719-791) Xalil was a Persian grammarian and literary critic and teacher of Sibawayh who is popularly known for having grounded the theory of Arabic lexicography and phonetics in his Kitaab al-'Ayn, and the study of prosody ('uruwd). Ibn al-Nadim (64) attributes 5 books to him, none of which survive. The Kitaab al-Jumal fiy lNahw (KJN), discussed in 9.5 is certainly falsely attributed to him. So far as grammar goes, he is important for his relationship with Sibawayh. Reuschel (1959: 9) notes that Sibawayh cites his opinion far more than any other linguist, mentioning his name on 410 occasions (608 acccording to Troupeau), though to what extent Sibawayhi's ideas are actually Xalil's remains an open question. As Sibawayhi's teacher he traditionally falls into the Basran camp. 1.4.1.2 Kisa'i (183/799) Kisa'i was a Persian who served as a teacher in the court of the (then crown prince) Ma'moun in Baghdad (ruled 198/813-218/833) and is one of the few early scholars who can be recognized as both a Quranic reader (cf. list in 1.3) and a linguist with specific grammatical ideas (as reported in various places by Farra'). Ibn al-Nadim credits him with 12 books, none of which is available in modern edited versions. His Ma'aaniy l-Qur'aan was perhaps the first of the genre, and Farra' in his Mďaaniy frequently refers to Kisa'i, not least to criticize his ideas (cf. 5.5.1). With Farra' he is traditionally considered the main exponent of the Kufan school (cf. e.g. Tha'lab, 359).

It is this problem that Ansari (1964) runs afoul of in his study on Farra'. He notes, quite correctly in my view, that Farra's opinions often put him at variance with other 'Kufans' like Kisa'i (see below, 1.4). Rather than use this observation to analyze Farra's ideas as independent variables within the context of early Arabic grammatical thinking (cf. Baalbaki 1981: 26), he quickly concludes that Farra' in fact was the founder of the Baghdadian school (366). The entire exercise amounts to no more than taking Farra's linguistic views out of the Kufan school and putting them into the Baghdadian, an attempt which even in the 'schools' approach to Arabic grammar raises more problems than it solves. Ansari, for example, cannot offer more than a handful of traits which distinguish Farra' as a Baghdadian (as opposed to Kufan or Basran, 452, 453), and he fails to explain how his interpretation of 'Baghdadian' relates to the traditional understanding of this term in the later Arabic grammarians themselves, like Anbari.

8

INTRODUCTION

1.4.1.3 Sibawayh (145 (?)-177/762-793) Very little is known about Sibawayh, the greatest of all Arabic linguists, one of the greatest in the history of linguistics, the author of the first major and authoritative work on Arabic grammar, al-Kitaab, The Book. Of Persian origin from Al-Baydaa', he resided in Basra studying with Xalil (with 608 references in the Kitaab), and Yunus (201 references). According to a popular legend, he left Basra when he was still fairly young after he lost a linguistic argument with his rival Kisa'i (Ibn al-Nadim 76, Suyuti II: 230, Blau 1966). He is the most important of the Basrans. 1.4.1.4 F a r a ' (144-207/761-822) Farra' was a Persian who resided for most of his life in Baghdad where he was a teacher in the court of the amir Harun al-Rashid. His major work, Mďaaniy al-Qur'aan> contains a good deal of grammatical analysis, much of which is systematically distinct from that of Sibawayh, even though he is said to have studied the Kitaab. I have consulted two other books of his, one on grammatical gender (cf. 3.5) and one on the form of word final -aa; most of the the other 30 works attributed to him, including his work on grammar entitled al-Huduwd, are to date lost, a contemporary study (Ansari 169) citing but four available works. Farra' is the major representative of the Kufan school, though it is noteworthy that in Ibn Mujahid he nowhere figures in the Kufan reading tradition, either as reader or as part of the 'asaaniid, the chain of authorities who guarantee the correctness of associating a particular tradition (e.g. that so and so was a reliable Quranic reader) with either Muhammad or one of his companions (69-79, 94-98). 1.4.1.5 Axfash (215/830 or 221/835) From Xwarizm (Transoxiana, present-day USSR), Axfash was resident in Baghdad and he is reported to have been older than Sibawayh, but at the same time his student. His importance traditionally lies in his being the Basran linguist mediating the time between Sibawayh and the third generation of Basran linguists, his students having been Mazini, Jarmi and Sijistani. His major work is Mďaaniy lQur'aan, said to have been used by Farra' in his work of the same title. 17 other books, all unaccounted for to date, are attributed to him. A story reported about him by Suyuti (I: 590) is interesting first of all in indicating that an ideological passion associated with adherence to a school or theory or scholar is not the exclusive preserve of modern linguists. It is said that Axfash entered Kisa'i's teaching circle incognito and began posing "hundreds" of embarrassing questions that Kisa'i could not reply to. In the midst of this KisaTs students were about to pounce on Axfash for his impertinence, but Kisa'i restrained them and let Axfash proceed. Afterwards Kisa'i recognized Axfash and asked him to stay and tutor his students. He also is said to have asked Axfash to write a Mďaaniy al-Qur'aan, and to have had Axfash secretly tutor him in Sibawayhi's Kitaab. The story is equally interesting for the implied social networks among the early scholars. As yet no close textual comparison substantiates or refutes possible influence among Kisa'i, Sibawayh, Farra' and Axfash. According to stories such as


9

this they should be present. On the other hand the account suggests elements of a post hoc rationalization of the early linguistic pedigrees: Kisa'i the Kufan asks Axfash to write a Ma'aaniy, whereas Kisa'i learns grammar from the Basran Axfash. Thus is the origin of the chief difference in genre between the two schools explained, the Kufans experts in exegesis, the Basrans in grammar. Farra's use of Axfash's Ma'aaniy confirms the ascendency of the Basrans in the earliest period, yet at the same time Axfash's acquaintance with Kufans and Kufan works accounts for his tendency to deviate from Basran thought in various instances (cf. 11.2.5). 1.4.1.6 Mubarrid (210-285/825-898) Of Yemeni ancestry, though born in Basra, Mubarrid (also Mubarrad) was a student of two of the best known linguists working in the mid-ninth century, Jarmi and Mazini. He was known for his rhetorical eloquence and one suspects is to a large extent responsible for furthering the conceptualization of Arabic grammar in terms of the Basran and Kufan schools (cf. §10) with the Basrans the predominant faction. He is said to have written at least 17 books, the two most important being Al-Kaamil, a philological work, and al-Muqtadab, a long summary of Arabic grammar. 1.4.1.7 Tha'lab (200-291/815-904) Of Persian origin, Tha'lab was Mubarrid's chief rival in Baghdad and he is reported to have written the first book on the Basran-Kufan disputes, now unfortunately lost. His sympathies lay with Farra', and he is reported to have memorized all of Farra's works. Nevertheless, as Weil (1913: 76, 77) notes, in the most significant survival of his output, al-Majaalis consisting of a mixture of philological and grammatical topics, there is little development, though not inconsiderable mention, of Farra's ideas (cf. 9.7). What is known of his linguistic thinking is very fragmentary; his reputation, however, requires that he be included among the major linguists. 1.4.1.8 Zajjaj (241-311/855-923) Considered the heir to Mubarrid, hence Basran, I will argue that it is with Zajjaj that the Basran/Kufan division first becomes fully crystallized (§10). His most notable surviving book is a Quranic commentary, Ma'aaniy al-Qur'aan wa Traabuhu, a general work on grammar having been lost. 1.4.1.9 Sarraj (316/928) Also a student of Mubarrid, he was interested in music and philosophy as well as in grammar. As Suyuti (I: 109), though not, from a shorter historical perspective Ibn al-Nadim (93), recognized, Sarraj marks a watershed in Arabic grammatical theory in that it is his organizational systematization in his al-'Usuwl fi l-Nahw, "The Foundations of Grammar", which effectively serves as the model for all subsequent pedagogical grammars, a point I take up in 4.3.

10

INTRODUCTION

1.4.2 Minor writers In addition to these linguists there are a number of minor writers, minor either in the sense that one hears little about them in the bio-bibliographical literature and /or minor in the sense that little of their writing survives. In the former category belongs Lughda (311/913), in the latter Ibn Kaysan (299/311 or 320/932) and Abu Bakr al-Anbari (260-328/939), the most famous student of Tha'lab. Of Ibn Kaysan I had access to only one short grammar, though if the earlier date is correct, many of the ideas set out in it would show him in various ways to be more original and systematic than his contemporary Mubarrid. For Abu Bakr al-Anbari I had only thematically very restricted books, the Alifaat, a treatment of the initial "alif in Arabic, and a detailed two-volume treatise on gender, Kitaab al-Mudakkar wa l-Mu'annao (KMM, see 9.7.2). In this category I can also mention two anonymous works, Muqaddima fiy /Nahw, "An Introduction to Grammar", attributed to Sibawayhťs contemporary Xalaf al-'Ahmar (180/796) and Kitaab al-Jumal fiy l-Nahw (KJN), attributed to Xalil. I discuss these attributions further in 9.1, 9.2, 9.5 and 9.10. 1.4.3 Other writers In passing can be mentioned linguists like Sijistani (182/798), Qutrub (206/821), Jarmi (225/839) and Mazini (249/863) who are frequently mentioned in the linguistic literature but whose work had either completely disappeared or survived in such insignificant amounts (e.g. Qutrub's Muoallaoaat or Sijistani's remarks on morphophonological structure in his 'Addaad: 120) as to make any significant reconstruction of their thinking a precarious business (cf. Reuschel 1959 and Fischer 1985 on Xalil, and Bernards 1987 for an interesting essay on Jarmi).

1.5. Plan of the Book

Chapter 2 serves as a prelude to the work. By giving an example of developments that transcended the period covered in this study, it serves as a reminder that theoretical developments did not end completely with Sarraj and by calling attention to theoretical positions common to all eras it reminds us that there are always overriding unitary factors present. Chapters 3 and 4 introduce the two most important linguists of the early period, Farra' and Sibawayh. In chapter 3 Farra's linguistic methodology is discussed with a view towards orientating his thinking within the constellation of Arabic linguistic thought; chapter 4 reviews aspects of Sibawayhťs methodology and concludes by comparing it with Sarraj's in order to offer a general perspective on one important aspect of the development of Arabic theory. Chapters 5-8 concentrate on Arabic theory in the crucial 2 nd /8 th and 3 rd /9 th centuries. Chapter 5 discusses in some detail the developments that occurred within the noun qualifier category (taabi'), using as sources the main linguists of the period, Sibawayh, Farra', Àxfash, Mubarrid, Tha'lab and Sarraj. Introducing new data, chapters 6-8 elaborate on three main themes that emerge from chapter 5: that the earliest linguists shared certain precepts that distinguished


11

them from later ones (chapter 6), that Farra' in some respects stands closer to his successors than does Sibawayh (chapter 7), and that in the 3 rd /9 th century there was a comparatively large degree of theoretical heterogeneity, a point illustrated from Farra' (chapter 8). Having provided the skeleton of a developmental framework based on the major linguists, in chapter 9 I discuss 4 minor linguists (minor in the sense of 1.4.2) with the view towards establishing where in the linguistic spectrum their ideas incline -- towards Sibawayh, Farra', later grammarians, or something unique. In chapter 10 I turn to the question of Basrans and Kufans, suggesting that these two localities crystallize as linguistic schools most dramatically in the work of Zajjaj. The last chapter, 11, attempts to organize the diverse linguistic themes discussed in chapters 2-10 within the framework of a structural analysis of early Arabic linguistic thinking. The conclusions from this are again applied to our interpretation of the Basran/Kufan schools, and to a discussion of general linguistic theory. In addition, there are 3 appendices. Appendix I gives a selected page index for various authors and topics drawn from the original texts, and deals with selected issues in early Arabic grammatical theory, issues felt either not to be central enough to the present work to be included in the main text, yet too long to be comfortably accommodated in a footnote, or important issues or points of general background whose inclusion in the main text would disrupt the rythmn of organization. Appendix II contains original Arabic quotes and III has a list of the Arabic grammarians cited.

1.6. Odd Remarks

1.6.1 When is terminology terminology? A question that looms especially prominent in a consideration of early Arabic theory is what constitutes technical terminology.6 The early Arabic grammarians tend to be unhelpful here, rather rarely giving explicit definitions for the terms they use (though Farra' is perhaps better than Sibawayh, e.g. I: 13.15 on taqriyb, 235.16 on sarf). The basic criteria for establishing whether or not a given linguist was using a given term as a fixed concept are clear. When a term is consistently used to represent a constant extensional class or a fixed process it can be taken as a technical term. Very often such terms are represented by a derivational set; the notion of governance in Sibawayh appears in such diverse, morphologically related forms as 'amal "governance", 'amilat "it governed" 'umila 'it was governed" 'a'mal-ta "you made govern" 'aamil/'awaamil "governor/governors", etc. (cf, Troupeau 1973) 6

Cf. for example the debate between Carter (1972b, 1985b) and Talmon (1982) on when nahw/nahwiyyuwna "grammar/grammarians" became a technical concept.

12

INTRODUCTION

while the corresponding term in Farra' appears in such forms as waqďa "it governed", yaqa'u "it governs" 'iyqaa' "governance", waaqV "governor", etc. (cf. 8.2.1). There are of course problematic cases. Among the writers discussed in chapter 9, from whom relatively little information is available, there are not always enough citations of a given term to establish its precise status, and other terms, for example tawkiyd "emphasis" (in Sibawayh) or tafsiyr (in Farra') appear sometimes to represent a fixed class of items, but at other times simply to designate a general function (cf. 5.2.1, 7.1.2,7.1.4). Most cases, however, I think are not problematic. 1.6.2 Some conventions When dealing with a fixed term I refer to the actual Arabic concept with an arbitrary form, usually, though not always, the 3 ms. sg. verb form. I will say, for instance, "Farra's notion of governance {waqďa) is characterized..." "Governance", the noun is, of course, 'iyqaa' (for Farra'), waqďa literally "it governed". However, in my conventional representation the form waqďa serves the necessary purposes. I will cite contextually correct forms only where necessary. As Reckendorf (74) explains, Arabic grammar had no term for case. Traab "case/mode suffix" refers to any inflectional ending whose form is determined by a governor. Thus, although the -a forms in (la) lan yadhab-a "he won't go" subjunctive b) saa'ada l-rajul-a "he helped the man" accusative are conventionally termed subjunctive (Konjunktiv) and accusative (Akkusativ) in Western parlance, in Arabic theory they are both called nasb because both -a forms are determined by a governor, yadhab-a by lan in (la), rajul-a by saa'ada in (lb). In order to stay closer to the Arabic usage I will speak in both instances of the ainflectional form, or a-inf for short (similarly u-inf for nominative/indicative, i-inf for genitive and 0-inf for jussive). "Inflection" here corresponds only to 'i'raab (case/mode suffixes) and should be understood only as such. Finally two remarks. When I refer to 'Basran' and 'Kufan' (henceforth I will drop the quotation marks) I do so in the traditional sense of Anbari, unless the context specifies otherwise. "Development" of such and such a class, e.g. "development of the specifiers {tamyiyz)", means development qua theoretical category, not the linguistic development of the items which realize that category, which is a topic for comparative grammar.

13

II TWO GENERAL POINTS

In the following chapters I shall concentrate specifically on aspects of the development of Arabic theory from Sibawayh to Sarraj. Given the emphasis on differences and change in this exercise, I think it worth noting two points that will serve to give a broader perspective to this development. On the one hand there are many important theoretical constants throughout this era, constants which in fact hold throughout the history of Arabic grammar; on the other Arabic grammatical theory did not stop developing with Sarraj, though the period under consideration is undoubtedly the most important for the formation of Arabic theory. I will illustrate each point with an example.

2.1 Dependency

From its earliest era Arabic grammatical theory has been preoccupied with the correlation of form and function, with the explanation of why certain words take certain forms in certain contexts, other forms m others. Two related elements can be singled out in the tradition: inflectional form and dependency. Inflectional form, Vraab (or lack of it, binaa') is, as it were, the dependent variable, what is explained by dependency (or governance, I use the two terms interchangeably), the relations that words contract with each other as governor and governed ('aamil/ma'muwl). In the expressions (1) (2) (3)

qaala said ra'aa saw min from

zayd-un zayd-u zayd-an zayd-a zayd-in zayd-i

"Zayd said". "He saw Zayd". "from Zayd"

the varying forms of zayd are explained as due to the different governor-governed relation obtaining in each - in (1) as u-inf agent to verb, in (2) as a-inf object to verb and in (3) and i-inf prepositional object to preposition. The basic concept of dependency as one item directly affecting the form of another was developed as early as Sibawayh. He used it both in the context of general rules,

14

Two GENERAL POINTS

Q 1 A question particle does not stand between the governor and governed ('aamil/ma'muwl). 53.9 and Q 2...nor do you separate an i-inf governor and what it governs (maa ya'malu fiyhi). 74.8 It applies equally to specific constructions, as when Sibawayh speaks of the Q 3 Topic which governs (ya'malu) it [= comment] and makes it [= comment] u-inf. 99.20 The general concept of dependency remained essentially unchanged in later theory, as I have shown for the period beginning with Mubarrid (Owens 1988: §2.4). The question concerning the category of items ultimately responsible for the dependency relations had a varied history, however. In some cases, such as what the governor of the comment (xabar) is, the controversies were officially recognized (cf. Anbari 44 no. 5). Many others, however, went unremarked upon, even though some of them involved a developmental span that stretched beyond Anbari's last Basran (Ibn Barhan, d. 456). The second example involves such a case.

2.2 The i-inf (genitive)

It came to be standard dogma that a possessive noun in the so-called pure possessive ('idaafa mahda, Tha'lab 530, Sarraj II: 5, or 'idaafa ma'nawiyya Zamaxshari 82) was governed in the i-inf in the same way a prepositional object is related to certain prepositions. By Ibn 'Aqil's time three types of prepositional meanings were recogmzed in the 'idaafa, those with min "from, of"', fly "at" and li "to, for" (II: 43). (4a)

(4b)

(4c)

xaatamu fiddat-in = xaatamun min fiddat-in ring silver-i ring from silver-i "A silver ring" 'a'jab-tu min darb-i l-yawm-i zayd-an = surprised-I from hitting-i today-i zayd-a "I was surprised that Zayd was hit today". 'a'jabtu min darb-i zayd-in fly l-yawm-i at yad-u zayd-in = yad-un li zayd-in hand zayd-i hand-u to

ARABIC GRAMMAR: THE E R A O F HETEROGENEITY

15

"Zayd's hand"

This interpretation, however, was not, as Astarabadi (I: 25) recognized, the only one, nor always the dominant one. In Sibawayh there is in fact no hint at all of any general relation between the N + N 'idaafa (possessive) construction and the prep + N ones. Q 4 The possessed item (mudaaf 'ilayhi) is governed in the genitive by three items: (a) what is neither noun nor locative (noun), (b) by a locative and (c) by non-locative nouns. 177.10 (5a)

(5b) (5c)

marar-tu bi zayd-in passed-I by Zayd-i "I passed by Zayd". tahta 'abdi llaah-i beneath Abdullahi-i himaaru zayd-in donkey zayd-i

- (a)

= (b) - (c)

It is true that Sibawayh mentions paraphrase relations of the type with min (cf. 4b) and li (4c), but that with li comes in his book II (331.4) and that with min occurs in an entirely different context where the topic of discussion is the form of modifying elements (195.12). They clearly in no way serve for Sibawayh as more basic forms to constructions like (5c). So far as the 'idaafa goes, the relation is simply either that of Prep + N i-inf (5a) or N + N i-inf (5b, c).1 In Mubarrid there would still seem to be a direct noun-noun relation in the possessive construction. Q 5 There are two types of 'idaafa relations, that when nouns occur as prepositional complements, and that where one noun occurs as possessor to another. IV: 136 However, in his clarification of the N-N i-inf there is a significant shift in the explanation. Q 6 As for the nouns in a direct possessive relation, they occur in the meaning of the laam [= li "to, for"] of possession. IV: 143 He then goes on to give a paraphrase of the type in (4c) above; the paraphrase with a prepositional construction is assuming a greater role. Neither Farra' nor Axfash make this association so far as I know. Where Axfash speaks of the N-Niinf relation he uses the expression jurra i-iî-'idaafa " made i-inf for the possessive function" (e.g. 17.7), which sounds as if the i-inf arises directly out of the N-N relation.

16

Two GENERAL POINTS

Sarraj (I: 53) essentially adopts Mubarrid's explanation, but he has added paraphrases with min, thus further systematizing some of Sibawayh's disparate observations and further strengthening the role of prepositions in interpreting this construction. With Jurjani2 the role of the preposition intrudes even into the syntax. Q 7 We spoke of the genitive with the meaning of the laam of possession in the sense that the noun governs [the posessor] in the i-inf because it has the meaning of the laam of possession. This is because pure [i.e. underived] nouns in their unmarked form are not governors, since governance is a property of verbs and particles... Muqt: 871 Here Jurjani is implicitly building on Zajjaji's discussion of the governance properties of verbs, nouns and particles ('lydaah: 11 ff., also Mub IV: 80, 81). For Zajjaji nouns and verbs are complementary in terms of their unmarked ('asl) governance properties: verbs are basically governors, not governed items, governing nouns in u-inf and a-inf form, and nouns are basically governed items.3 Zajjaji does not (so far as I know) take the argument a step further and state that nouns are basically not governors. Such a move is, however, wholly compatible with his analysis of the governance properties of nouns, verbs, and particles, and it is the position reached by Jurjani roughly 100 years after Zajjaji. Jurjani's position is then adopted by most subsequent grammarians (e.g. Zamaxshari 82, Ibn Ya'ish II: 117, Ibn 'Aqil II: 43), though Astarabadi (I: 25) recapitulates the different views, with arguments for regarding either the preposition or possessed noun as basic governor. He decides for neither.4 The development can be schematically represented as follows. (6a) Sibawayh: (6b) Mubarrid, Sarraj

5

(6c) Zajjaji: (6d) Jurjani:

nouns govern nouns

pssd — > pssr i-inf

nouns govern nouns pssd — > pssri-inf close semantic correlation posited between N + N and N + PreP + N i-inf nouns basically governed; verbs, prepositions are governors nouns govern nouns derivatively pssd -(meaning of prep)--> pssri-inf

If not sooner, though I have not yet found an intervening grammarian who expressed this view. Verbs, as had been hinted at as early as Sibawayh (I: 2), acquire their ability to be governed (Le. to have 'i'raab) only derivatively via their resemblance to nominals, in particular, to the active participle. He does, however, reject the idea that the fact of possession {'idaafa) itself is the governor, observing that such an explanation is illogical since the 'idaafa construction itself presupposes the constituents, mudaaf/mudaaf 'ilayhi whose form it purports to explain. To the prepositional explanation he adds yet another twist, saying that it more basically 'derives' from a sentential construction, gulaamun hasała li zaydin, "a boy came to belong to Zayd". Zajjaji {Jurnal: 60 ff., 144) follows Sarraj's syntactic treatment.


17

(6d) Jurjani:

nouns govern nouns derivatively pssd --(meaning of prep)--> pssr i-inf The linguistic examples of Sibawayh and Jurjani, those whose positions are most different, can be contrasted as follows. (7a) (7b)

Sibawayh maalu > "Zayďs wealth" Jurjani maalu -meaning ofli-->

zayd-in zayd-in

In Sibawayh pssr depends directly on pssd; in Jurjani it depends on the pssd only because the relation has the same meaning as a parallel relation with N + prep + N i - i n f Three general points to be observed are the following. First, the impetus for the reinterpretation came initially from a meaning equivalence (Npssd + Npssr = N + prep + N) and this eventually was incorporated into a formal grammatical feature. Secondly, the final explanation (Jurjani) was preceded by a general theoretical shift in the analysis of the properties of words: words are associated with inherent governance properties and this conception came to be reflected in the analysis of the particular possessive construction under consideration here. Thirdly, these changes did not happen simultaneously. The chronology is as follows: (8a) semantic paraphrase (8b) definition of governance properties of noun, verb, particles (8c) nouns are not inherent governors in possessive construction Steps (8b/c) fall outside the period covered in the present study. 2.3 Scope of Study

The foregoing remarks serve as a partial indication of the scope of the present study. Little emphasis is put on the common themes uniting the Arabic thinking of the period, and relatively little on the post-Sarraj era. However, by isolating some of the important developments within one key era, one will be in a better position to gauge the unitary motifs within the period and the continuing developments (or lack thereof) in later ones.

19

III FARRA' AS LINGUIST

The main orientation of this study is comparative, comparison of different linguists, comparison of linguistics over different periods. Nevertheless, it is not out of place to devote a short chapter exclusively to Farm's grammatical method, purely synchronically observed. Such a chapter is necessary if only because relatively little about Farm's linguistic methodology has been written. It takes on further urgency because it can legitimately be asked to what extent Farra' can be considered a linguist, or put in another way, to what extent his Ma'aaniy can be seen to rest on a coherent theory of Arabic grammar, as opposed to some informal linguistic techniques whose main purpose was to exemplify Quranic meanings. The point is important, for if the answer is negative the validity of directly comparing Sibawayh with Farra' and Farra' with later linguists will be greatly vitiated; Farra' would at best represent a tradition of applied linguistics whose goal, unlike Sibawayh's, is not a comprehensive description of Arabic but rather the elucidation of one particular text, with all the limitations that such a narrow goal implies. Here of course one should be prejudiced neither by the fact that we have on hand no comprehensive grammar written by Farra', nor by the reality that most of what we have of his work relates to a single text. Even if it is impossible to discern a comprehensive grammatical theory in his isolated analyses of Quranic verses, it still might be possible to identify enough general and specific linguistic features to conclude that he did indeed have an overall grammatical framework. A fuller answer to this question will have to await a more detailed study of Farra' than I propose to undertake here. Nonetheless, I think it can be suggested that Farra' did operate with a fairly well-defined grammatical theory, which I want to indicate in a general way through the discussion of six aspects of his work: his use of the concepts 'asl "basic, unmarked", mawdi' "syntactic position", qiyaas "analogy", his use of general rules, the style and content of his single surviving textbook, which is a short work on grammatical gender, and the similarities of his Ma'aaniy to that of the later Basran grammarian Zajjaj.

3.1 'Asl

I have suggested (1986: 226) that the most general meaning of 'asl in linguistic parlance is "unmarked"; what this means in particular grammatical contexts varies, though whatever the context the term always implies a ruleoverned hierarchy whereby one form can on some basis be judged to be more

g

basic than another. Clearly the use of such a concept presupposes the existence of

20

FARRA' AS LINGUIST

a formal structure against which 'basicness' of the various items realizing the structure can be graded. Farra' uses the idea of 'asl mainly, though not exclusively (cf. e.g. I 304.8, 362.10, 469.10) in (morpho-) phonological contexts, one of which can be discussed here (cf. Anbari 812, #118 for further discussion of the point; Farra' I 5.2, 5.17, 373.10, 468.8 for further examples). Farra' wants to establish the reason why aşyaa' is partially inflected (I 321.9 ff).1 The key is to establish its basic lexical form and relate this to general properties which partially inflected nouns have. Farra' begins by reviewing a suggestion of "some grammarians" (ba'd al-nahwiyyiyna) that its basic lexical form is 'aşyaa' = 'af'aal, with ş, y, ' as the basic sounds/letters of the root (cf. Bohas 1984: § 2 for the concept of root in Arabic theory). These grammarians claim that the pattern 'af'aal (of 'asyaa') resembles the pattern fa'l-aa\ a form which is partially inflected, and this resemblance, as well as the fact that 'aşyaa' is used frequently in speech (kaoirat fi l-kalaam) leads to 'aşyaa' being partially inflected. Against this Farra' says that frequent use tends to make a morphological pattern more regular, not less so, and hence on this ground 'asyaa' would be expected to have full inflection. Instead Farra' suggests the basic form is 'asyi'-aa' = 'af'il-aa\ the final -aa' being an added sound, not one basic to the root. This pattern (Uke fďl-aa' noted above) is partially inflected. The second / ' / , which functions as the final root consonant (= /i/) is (along with the /i/) deleted because of frequent use. The structure is analogous to words like layyin "soft", pl. 'alyin-aa'. (la)

'aşyi'-aa' —> 'afil-aa'

(b) 'aşy-aa'(i'- — > 0) 'af-aa'

not (2)

'aşyaa' 'afaal Although he does not use the term 'asl in this context, he clearly is thinking in terms of a principled derivation from a root morphological pattern, and elsewhere (e.g. I: 373.12,468.8) 'asl does refer to a morphological base form. Asl similarly is invoked to explain semantic extension, as when laa jarama "there is nothing bad" is said to be basically,^ l-'asl, (II: 8.13) to have the meaning laa budda, "one must", but through frequent use to have taken on the meaning haqqan, "truly", as in laa jarama 'ahsanta "truly you have gotten better". In passing it can be noted that Ansari (1964: 333-335) considers Farra' to be the founder of 'usuwl theory, without, however, adequately exemplifying his claim.

Partially inflected nouns lack indefinite -n and distinct a- and i- inflectional forms.


21

3.2 General Rules

Secondly, Farra' not infrequently uses the opportunity of explaining particular points to establish universal grammatical rules, often beginning with the universal quantifier kull "all x". For instance, he says that §laa musta'nisiyna§ "no tame ones" (II: 347.13) can be analyzed as either a-inf or i-inf on the general principle that, Q 8 Any meaning (function?, ma'naa) which permits two inflections and is realized by items separated from one another allows the second item to be inflectionally different from the first, as illustrated by a)

maa 'anta neg you 'ilayka to-you

bi muhsin-in by charitable-i wa and

laa not

'ilaa to

man ahsana who be good

mujmil-an/mujmil-in do favor-a/ -i

"You would not be considered charitable to one who has been charitable to you, nor as having done a favor." II: 347.16 The i-inf in mujmilin is explained by agreement with muhsin-in, which takes iinf form after the preposition bi in the construction maa + subject + bi. The a-inf is also the result of agreement, but with the assumed form muhsin-an, as if one had used the equally grammatical alternative (3) maa 'anta muhsin-an... where maa governs an a-inf predicate (cf. §4, n. 6). Farra' then proceeds to give further examples from poetry. Here Farra' begins with one Quranic passage, but quickly generalizes to a universal condition, and to prove this uses an example contrived to illustrate the point at hand. In passing it can be noted that a similar principle is found inter alia in Sibawayh (I: 42) and Sarraj (I:127). In another passage Farra' explains that "plurals which have a long aa followed by two consonants are not fully inflected" (I: 428.6 Q 9 ). Plurals like makaatibu "offices" count as diptotes, that is, never take the indefinite -n and do not distinguish the a- and i-inf when indefinite. It is interesting to observe that Farra' goes on to offer an explanation for why such plurals are diptotes, namely because they are unique in that no singular nouns have such a form (CaCaaCiC). General rules are equally invoked in his work on gender, as when he declares that "any of the sounds/letters aa, b, t, etc. when designating the alphabet are feminine" (MM: 110).

22

FARRA' AS LINGUIST

It is readily apparent that with such statements Farra' is more interested in explaining the language in general than in individual texts. A conservative list of such statements includes I: 39.9, 80.6, 178.9, 188.6, 241.7, 362.10, 409.8, II 105.4, 324.7, as well as 101, 107 and 116 in MM.

3.3 Position, Context, mawdi'

Arabic structural analysis, as will be further exemplified in the next chapter, relies heavily on the notion of position and this is no less true of Farra's practice than that of any other linguist. Here I will outline three ways Farra' uses the notion of position to regularize and explain various constructions. 3.3.1 Invariable form One of the most frequent ways he uses this notion is to establish the syntactic status of items with one invariable morphological form. For example, man in (4)

§ laqad 'alim-uw la-man 'istaraa-hu I:65.5 (2/102) has learned-pl -who bought-it "Indeed they know what their money (actions) can buy (in the hereafter)"

is explained as "in the u-inf position as a conditional word". Man, that is, is subject of a dependent sentence (for further examples involving single words cf. I: 58.7, 103.16, 104.10, 105.4, 139.7, 421.6, 427.12, 442.3, II: 194.1, 195.1, 223.1, 323.8, III: 73.2, 87.3, etc.). The uninflected "word" need not be a single word. In, (5)

qad tabayyana liy 'a qaama zaydun 'am has be clear to me Q got up Zayd or "It became clear to me whether Zayd or Amr got up". II: 333.5

'amrun Amr

he notes that Q 10. The [dependent] sentence [=jumla, boldface portion] is u-inf in meaning, as if one says (a) tabayyana daaka "That became clear" He does not actually use the term mawdi' here, though it is clearly implied by the substitution of daaka for the S in the subject function.

Cf. Kinberg (1987) for further exemplification of this point, in respect to Farra's use of the notion radda

ARABIC GRAMMAR: THE E R A OF HETEROGENEITY

23

Not all items are equally eligible to occur in certain contexts. With this in mind Farra' explains two interpretations of maa in (6) as follows (6)

li-ya'kul-uw min Oamarihi wa maa 'amilat 'ayday-him let-eat-pl from fruit-its and what made hands-their "Let them first eat from the fruit and what their hands made". II: 377.9

It is either in the position of i-inf, under the interpretation min maa "from what", or it is interpreted as a negative particle, like (6b)

lam ta'mal-0-hu 'ayday-him neg do-0-it hands-their "Their hands didn't do". "(We made them...palms and grapes) and their hands did not make (them)".

in which case "you don't assign it a [syntactic] position" (II: 377.12 Q 11, cf. also I: 470.5). That is, as a negative particle it does not have a status as one of the major functional categories of a sentence (agent, object, verb, etc.). This last formulation (Q 11, previous paragraph) is quite interesting, first because it shows that mawdi' has acquired a technical aspect -- it is not simply "context" (though in places it can be so interpreted) out rather "inflectable position". Secondly, from an historical perspective this is similar to a formulation used by Sarraj (cf. II: 61-68, less clearly Mubarrid IV: 248) and later grammarians, and in modern times Rajihi (1974: 350) using mawqi' rather than mawdi', to describe items which occur in an inflectable position but which cannot themselves be inflected, items like sentences occurring in agent or object position. The precise meaning of the expression in later theory has changed from items which cannot have a major functional status (in Farra') to those which cannot bear the usual inflectional sign associated with a given position (e.g. in Sarraj). The expression itself, however, appears to have originated with Farra'. 3.3.2 Sequence It is a notable fact that Farra' gives far less attention to sequence than does Sibawayh. The most important example of this situation concerns the analysis of nominal sentences, composed of topic and comment, where roughly (cf. Levin 1986) Sibawayh designates a sentence-initial noun as topic, as beginning item ('ibtidaa'). Farra' on the other hand does not distinguish a nominal-type sentence. So far as we know Farra' would identify the boldface word (7) as a predicate ( = xabarorfi'l,cf. 8.2.3). (7) qaama zaydun "Zayd got up". zaydun qaama " zaydun muntaliqun "Zayd is leaving".3 Beyond this, however, he makes no further sub-divisions into verbal and nominal sentence types. Fi'l for him thus has the status of "predicate" irrespective 3

Non-finite predicates have a similar designation, as in danna zaydan muntaliqan "he thought Zayd to be leaving".

24

FARRA' AS LINGUIST

of sentence order in much the same way musnad came to mean "predicate" for the later grammarians (Levin 1981: 151 ff.). This is not to say that Farra' considered sequence an irrelevant aspect of linguistic theory. There are indeed a number of places where it is explicitly treated and integrated into his overall description (e.g. I: 165.2, 169.13, 184.7, 196 ff., 276.4, 371.14, II: 243.14). In the following example it intersects with the idea of position. Discussing the order of the tafsiyr "specification" element ra'yahu(cf. 7.1.2) in (8)

safiha zayd-un ra'y-a-hu be foolish zayd-u opinion-a-his "Zayd is foolish in his opinion".

he notes that it cannot be fronted: Q 12 And you don't say (a) *ra'yahu safiha zaydun just as you don't say (b) *daar-an 'anta 'awsa'ahum "So far as houses go, you have the biggest" because even though ra'yahu is definite [because it is possessed by the definite pronoun -hu], it has the status of an indefinite noun, and indefinite nouns [in this context] are left in their position and do not move from it. I: 79.13 This analysis can be summarized as follows. (a) The tafsiyr (= daaran) is usually indefinite. (b) It occurs post-predicate. (c) ra'yahu (in (8)) is definite, but has the status of an indefinite tafsiyr. (d) Therefore it too only occurs post-predicate. Among its structural properties, the tafsiyr has a specific sequential position, and any alternative orders are judged relative to this. 3.3.3 Unusual or exceptional constructions Finally it can be observed that the concept of position is invoked to explain unusual constructions, as in, (9)

§ 'alladiyna those who

yadkuruwna mention

llaaha God

qiyaam-an standing-a

wa qu'uwd-an and sitting


25

wa 'alaa junuwb-i-him and on sides-i-their "Those who mention God standing, sitting, and on their sides". I: 250.12, 3/188 Here Farra' poses himself the question how 'alaa, a locative (sifa, cf. 7.2.2) can be coordinated with a noun, and answers by paraphrasing 'alaa junuwbihim with the verbal noun ...wa niyaaman "and sleeping". The twin tools of position and substitution clarify the construction.

3.4 Analogical Reasoning

The use of analogical reasoning plays a vital role in the regularization of linguistic structure, allowing the grammatical properties of unusual constructions to be determined on the basis of well-defined ones. Examples of analogical argumentation in Farra' have already been noted. In 3.1 Farra' was seen to argue that 'asyaa' cannot be the plural of say' because fďaal is fully inflected and since frequent use does not allow a fully inflected noun to become partially inflected another base form must be assumed; in 3.3.2 the position of rayahu was seen to be defined relative to that of daaran and other tafsiyr items. In these instances Farra's appeal to analogy is implicit, and the reader will note further such examples in the following chapters. In at least five places in his MQ Farra' mentions the term qiyaas "analogy" (or its derivate) explicitly. In one (II: 204.2) he discusses the choice of uor a-inf in a possessed noun, concluding with the imperative, qis alaa haadaa "proceed on the analogy of this". In another instance a form is not used though it could be analogically (huwa l-qiyaas) sanctioned (II: 358.11); in I: 296.2 qiyaas has roughly the sense of "false analogy" and in I: 6.8 qiyaas defines the extent to which the morphophonological rule u --> i can apply. In one instance qiyaas links up with a general rule. Discussing the exceptional a-inf governor maa laka in (10)

maa laka l-naadir-a py neg to you observer-a in "You have no business looking into our affair".

'amńnaa affair-our

where maa laka + comp has the status of an idiomatic expression, he says that one cannot construct other examples with maa + nominal + a-inf comp because "you don't extend what is not used (i.e. permitted) to what is by analogy" (I: 281.9 Q 1 3 , cf. Beck 1946:197, also I: 81.15 ana discussion in Ansari: 341). In his short textbook on gender the term is used with comparatively greater frequency (58, 60, 63, 67, 110, 121). It thus appears that Weil's characterization of the Kufans as disinclined to use analogical methods is far from correct.

26

FARRA' AS LINGUIST

3.5 Farra' on Gender

Farra' wrote the first in what would be a long tradition4 of grammatical works summarizing various properties of gender in Arabic, al-Mudakkar wa l-Mu'anna0, The Masculine and Feminine Gender. Like most of its successors, it is a short book, just over 60 pages in a recent edition, though it deals with its subject in a succinct, well-organized fashion. Farra' begins, for example, by explaining that there are three overt feminine morphological markers, -at, as in fulaan-at, "so and so-f', -aa' as in hamr~aa' "red-f", and -aa as in hubl-aa "pregnant-f". The last two markers participate in no systems with corresponding masculine forms, while for the first, "as a general rule (al-qiyaas) masculine andQfeminine are distinguished by means of -at, jaalis "sitting-m", jaalis-at, "sitting-f (58 14 ). Farra' thus begins the introduction with an amply lucid generalization (cf. 3.2) , goes on to discuss exceptions to the general rule just quoted, and sometimes offers independent explanations for why the exceptions exist (e.g. pp. 63, 67). He then moves on to other functions correlating with m/f morphological form, like that of mass vs. singulative nouns, baqar "cattle-m (mass noun)", baqar-at "cow-f (a single cow)" (69), again followed by exceptions to the general situation, then discusses feminine nouns with no overt morphemic marker of feminine, along with their corresponding diminutives where the feminine marker appears, 'ayn - 'ayyin-at "eye (f) - small eye" (73). In this long discussion (73-110) he notes cases where words differ as to their categorization as m/f according to dialect. Other topics then include the gender of sounds/letters when referred to individually (110, cf. 3.2), a discussion of agreement in pronouns (15), adjectives (116) and lexical correspondences between m/f pairs (120). By the end it is dealing with various left-over categories in a somewhat piecemeal fashion, but on the whole it is a highly readable and well-planned account of gender, certainly more informative than, for example, the later work of Ibn Jinni by the same title, which really deals only with what Farra' discusses from pp. 73-110. The conclusion to be drawn is that Farra' could deal with a single grammatical topic in a manner as professional as any other linguist.5

3.6 Ma'aaniy l-Qur'aam Farra' and Zajjaj

Both Farra' and Zajjaj wrote commentaries on the Qur'aan. These are interesting because they offer an opportunity for an extended comparison of works of identical genre between a Kufan and a Basran. As pointed out in chapter 1, Farra' is traditionally regarded as the leading figure or Kufan persuasion, while Grammarians listed in Ibn al-Nadim who wrote works of the same title include Sijistani, Mubarrid and the Kufans Ya'qub and Anbari. A similar judgment applies to his short Al-Manquws wa l-Mamduwd in which he defines the nominal classes which end in either -aa or -aa\ giving the root sound, V or w from which the -aa is derived as well. It is a very systematic, if severely taxonomic, treatment which would appear to be tailored to a pedagogical use.


27

Zajjaj is an important Basran figure, and indeed I will argue in chapter 10 that he was to a large degree responsible for the crystallization of the terms 'Basran' and 'Kufan' in the sense of representing grammatical schools. So far as the present discussion goes, the comparison will indicate to what extent Farra' and the Basrans diverged in their choice of data, examples, methodology and theory. I do not attempt a comprehensive comparison. Rather I analyze the first 20 pages of Farra's MQ, which contain the first Quranic chapter, the "al-Faatiha", and the first 24 verses from the second chapter, "al-Baqara". For reasons given below, the Quranic analysis by Zajjaj up to the same point (al-Baqara 24) represents considerably more pages than Farra', some 68. In neither author is each and every Quranic verse discussed. Rather, short problematic passages, anywhere from one word up to 2 or 3 lines, are selected and discussed. The problem may reside in any of a number of areas. In 3.6.1, after general remarks about the material each linguist covers, I briefly exemplify the nature of the problems considered, and in 3.6.2 make a verse by verse comparison between some of those passages discussed by both Farra' and Zajjaj. 3.6.1 The Issues Even allowing for the fact that the edition used of Farra's MQ contains more words per page than does Zajjaj's,6 Zajjaj's work is considerably longer, and for obvious reasons. The main one is that he discusses more passages. Up to "alBaqara 24" Farra' has 18 major sub-sections, each sub-section headed by a Quranic citation,7 while Zajjaj has 46 sub-sections. Farra' discusses passages from 13 verses, Zajjaj from 29. Moreover, Zajjaj's passages are often longer, and he tends to give more lexical definitions than Farra'. The difference, however, is more a quantitative than a qualitative one, for the issues discussed are similar. These can be broadly classified under five major headings, (morpho-)phonological form, syntax, lexical and collocational definitions, pragmatic questions, and questions relating to the interpretation of the passage (see Ap IA). Both writers discuss questions of (morpho-)phonological form, why, for instance, the i of bismi llaahi "in the name of God" (< hi ismi llaahi) is orthographically deleted in the opening verse of the Qur'aan, or what the variants of mustahzVuwna "scoffers, ridiculers" are (mustahziyuwna, mustahzuwna, mustahzu'uwna, Zajjaj only, I: 55, cf. Diem 1980: 101). The issues are not simply which forms are attested, but also what rules account for the variations. Zajjaj (I: 35) for instance explains the causative form IV of yuqiymu "make stand" by reference to the canonical form IV causative pattern yufilu (cf. 3.6.2 for further examples). Syntactic questions are also important. One standard problem, for example, was the determination of the syntactic status of items that do not carry an explicit inflectional marker, those like hudan "guidance" (Far I: 11.11, Zaj I: 33) or 'alladiyna Perhaps in the range of 290 (Farra') versus 260 (Zajjaj) for a page without footnotes. The Quranic passage at the head of each sub-section is usually, though not always, discussed from different grammatical perspectives. In the text of a sub-section are sometimes placed other Quranic citations which either are systematically analyzed or adduced to further illustrate the point at issue; sometimes a verse is divided among more than one sub-section.

7

28

FARRA' AS LINGUIST

"relative pro" (Zaj I: 33, 34, cf. 3.3.1). Many other types of problems are raised as well, like the grammatical status of the preposition bi in negative sentences, nounadjective agreement after 'ayyuhaa "what a!", the classification of demonstrative + N collocations, and so on. Here again although the initial data comes from the Qur'aan, the exemplification is largely effected with non-Quranic material. Lexical and collocational explanations are also prominent. The meaning of verbs, nouns, particles and phrases are often given dictionary-like paraphrases, and metaphorical images are equally explained. The interpretation or entire passages relates the meaning to the larger textual context, though it is comparatively rare for the writers to enter into the theological or legal implications of the meaning. Finally pragmatic factors are taken into account especially to define items necessary to reconstruct the proper meaning of the text. Playing a significant role at all levels of analysis is the existence of variants, whether morpho-phonological, syntactic, lexical, pragmatic or interpretive. 3.6.2 A Comparison In this section I give a verse-by-verse comparison of the first eight subsections described by both Farra' and Zajjaj. So short a comparison can hardly claim to be comprehensive, but it does give an initial indication as to the scope of material covered and the style. Moreover specific interests and orientations found in the first eight sub-sections certainly do repeat themselves throughout the 20 page sample of Farra' and 68 of Zajjaj. In appendix IA I give a general summary of the types of questions addressed by Farra' and Zajjaj in each sub-section, using the typology described in the previous section. 3.6.2.1 Faatiha 1. §bismi Uahi "in the name of God" Farra' (pp. 1, 2). The form of bismi (< bi ismi) is explained and other cases discussed where i- is orthographically (and phonetically) deleted, an important point being that the i- belongs to the class of linking glottal stop, hamzat al-wasl, which represents a non-structural prothetic insertion (or lack of it). The notion of frequent use is appealed to in order to distinguish the non-representation of iwhen bismi is used at the beginning of this and other Quranic chapters, and its non-deletion when used in the middle of a text (e.g bi ismi, I: 2, n. 2). Zajjaj (pp. 1-4). He begins with a similar discussion, though suggests that one should interpret bada'tu8 "I begin" at the beginning of the text, i.e. bada'tu bismi llaahi "I begin in the name of God". Bada'tu need not be expressed, however, because it is recoverable from the pragmatic context (cf. Owens 1988 §7). Like Farra' he notes the i- = hamzat al-wasl and that it is deleted because of frequent use. Then follows a discussion of the derivation of the word ism "name, noun" (cf. Anbari In: no. 1), a general discussion of the meaning of bi "by means of' and the form of grammatical particles in which inter alia he seeks to establish why certain

Cf. Larcher 1987 for discussion of why the perfective verb form is used in this performative context.


29

particles have the form they do.9 This concern with explaining why forms are as they are is much more prominent with Zajjaj than with Farra' (e.g. Zajjaj I: 8, 17, 34, 54). In this discussion, as in many other places, he invokes Sibawayh's opinion a number of times. He further discusses the phrase §al-rahman al-rahiym, which Farra' does not analyze. One notes in this first sub-section that the greater length of Zajjaj's text is due not so much to a more detailed analysis of the actual Quranic text, but rather to the consideration of more passages from a verse and to a discussion of more grammatical topics (meaning of bi, form of particles, etc.). 3.6.2.2 Faatiha 2 §al-hamd-u li-llaahi "praise be unto God" Farra' (pp. 3-6). The Quranic readers concur on the one form of this passage, but three further variants are attested, al-hamda, al-hamdi, and al-hamdu lullahi, which were prevalent among the Bedouins. Each form is explained on (morpho)phonological grounds, and the last, which explains the lu- (in lullahi) by vowel harmony, leads to a longish discussion of vowel harmony in pronominal suffixes, e. g. 'aiayhu/'alayhi "on him" with the general observation being made that the rule y-hu — > y-hi applies only across morpheme boundaries when y immediately precedes -hu. The discussion of vowel harmony rules does much to elucidate the general nature of the ma'ani literature. There is nothing in Faatiha 2 which necessitates the discussion of vowel harmony, let alone the formulation of a general morphophonological rule. Whether it was added because of Farra's interest in grammar, or to impress upon students that the language of the Qur'aan is fundamentally the same as a form of Arabic found in daily use, or to exploit a pedagogical device whereby Quranic passages are clarified with simplified stock examples from the everyday language, the fact remains that the greater part of the discussion about this is a fairly technical linguistic one. As such it is typical of Farra's (and Zajjaj's) work as whole. Zajjaj (7, 8). Zajjaj gives the syntactic analysis of al-hamdu (which Farra' does not do), insisting that only this form is countenanced by tradition (li'anna l-sunna tutba'u fiy l-Qur'aan). He notes the variants which Farra' has mentioned (not associating them with Farra') but adds that they are not to be used and indeed that their mention serves only to "warn people not to use them". Zajjaj makes a fairly consistent distinction between the Arabic of the Qur'aan and that of everyday speech, which he terms either kalaam or, more often, luga (e.g. I: 9, 33, 51, 53, 56, 59, 60), and in one instance (48) he speaks of what is allowed only in grammar (nahw). Here emerges an important difference between Farra' and Zajjaj. Whereas for Farra' variant Quranic usages had an important status, even if, as Baalbaki (1985: 24) rightly points out, only when confirmed by speakers of the language, not only in the qiraa'aat literature, for Zajjaj they assumed a far more secondary role, in some instances meriting only negative comment. The difference in attitude reflects the growing status of the written Quranic text at the expense of the Quranic variants, as Beck has well documented (1946-1954). It also reflects the Not morphophonological rules but rather why morphemes have the canonical form they do, why, for example, the preposition "for, to", is li- before nouns but la- before pronouns.

30

FARRA' AS LINGUIST

sociolinguistic reality that classical Arabic had probably died out as a spoken language by Zajjaj's day (cf. 5.8.3.2 and 10.5). The latter point is particularly prominent in the present example. Zajjaj analyzes more of Faatiha 2 not considered by Farm' and also discusses Faatiha 4, 5 and 6, which are not discussed by Farra'. 3.6.2.3 Faatiha 7 §gayri l-magduwbi 'alayhim "not those in disfavor" (lit "on whom there is anger"), §wa laa l-daalliyna "nor those who have gone astray" Farra' (7, 8). At issue is the syntactic analysis of gayr-i "other than" with three alternative analyses being considered plausible. An important grammatical point hinges on the categories definite, indefinite (ma'rifa, nakra) and mu'aqqat, proper, definite noun. The last term is one peculiar to Farra's thinking and deserves fuller elucidation than the passing reference given it here. Farra' shows that in certain instances gayri can act as a modifier (na't) to a definite noun, though it usually modifies an indefinite one. Two alternatives in a-inf form are discussed, one analyzing gayra as a qat'(= haal), the other as a substitute (takriyr, cf. 7.1.4). Another part of the verse is discussed in which the appropriateness of the coordination of wa laa "and not" with gayri is a central issue. Zajjaj (12-17). The same two problems are discussed. Regarding gayri, Zajjaj, like Farra', states that gayr basically (asl, 16) acts as a modifier (sifa) to an indefinite noun. Gayri can alternatively be analyzed as a substitute (badal, cf. 5.1.3). Further like Farra', Zajjaj gives an alternative a-inf form, gayr-a which is to be analyzed either as a haal10 or exception ('isti0naa'). The syntactic discussion by the two displays a number of similarities. Gayri as the accepted form (in the written text) is analyzed by both as a modifier (na't/sifa). An alternative gayra is allowed by both and in both this has two interpretations, either a haal, found in both, or a substitute (takriyr, Farra') or exception (Zajjaj). The main difference is that Zajjaj gives two analyses for the form gayri (modifier or substitute) whereas Farra' has only one. In any case, the differences in grammatical analysis are ones of minor detail. Zajjaj gives wa laa a similar treatment as in Farra'. In addition Zajjaj discusses forms like 'alayhu/'alayhi, which parallels Farra's discussion of the same topic in Faatiha 2 (cf. 3.6.2.2). He also discusses the alternative form of third person object pronouns with final -w (-hum(uw) "them", -hu(wa) "him", etc.) and adds a touch of sophistication not found in Farra', ranking the alternative forms 'alayhi, 'alayhu, 'alayhiya, 'alayhuwa (all = "on him") in order of preference. He discusses a further example from Faatiha 7 not treated by Farra'. 3.6.2.4 al-Baqara 1, alma Farra' (9, 10). Various Quranic verses have letters at the beginning whose significance until today remains unexplained. At the beginning of al-Baqara occurs 'alma' for instance. This prompts a discussion of how the letters of the alphabet Of course the Basran Zajjaj uses Basran terminology, haal rather than qať, darf rather than sifa, and so on; cf. 8.2.


31

should be written, a different treatment being prescribed if they represent individual letters or if they are treated as nouns in their own right. Zajjaj (18-27). Zajjaj treats the same topic with a separate chapter, "This is the chapter about the letters of the alphabet" (21). He adds to the discussion various opinions about the meaning of the initial letters. 3.6.2.5 al-Baqara 2 (in two sub-sections), daalika l-kitaab"that book", §hudan li-lmuttaqiyna "a guidance to the believers" Farra' (10-14). The discussion first centers on the question why daalika "that" rather than haadaa "this" is used, after which five different syntactic analyses of hudan "guidance" are discussed (cf. 6.2.2.2 Q 48). The demonstrative + N collocation of §daalika l-kitaab leads to a consideration (12.7 ff.) of three types of demonstrative + N phrases, those where the noun is a specific, definite individual, those where it represents a generic concept, and those where it denotes a unique type (haadaa l-qamar-u nuwr-an "behold the moon shining"; there is only one moon). For this last type he invokes his notion of taqriyb "drawing near" to explain the function of haadaa, the main point being that when the nouns denote a unique type the demonstrative is semantically (though not syntactically) superfluous, except to ensure that a correct syntactic structure (what amounts to topic + comment) is established (13.6, cf. Ap D (8)). Again we observe Farra' wandering away from Quranic exegesis into general linguistics. Zajjaj (29-33). Zajjaj begins with a similar discussion of §daalika l-kitaab (vs. haadaa l-kitaab), though with more opinions given, some of them backed up by analogous poetic examples. Although Farra' too had recourse to poetry at times (though cf. I: 14.8), Zajjaj supports his opinions or those of others much more often with poetic references. He further gives a syntactic analysis of the Quranic citation in which l-kitaab is termed an 'atf l-bayaan (30, cf. 5.1.4). The morphological analysis of daalika ( = daa + li + ka) is given. Further grammatical analyses are given of laa rayba and hudan, as well as a morphological analysis of fiyhi "in it", paralleling that of 'alayhi sketched in 3.6.2.3 above. The lexical meaning of laa rayba "there is no doubt" is paraphrased as laa sakka "there is no doubt", and further poetic examples illustrating the meaning of the root ryb are given. Farra' does not explain the meaning of laa rayba, though he discusses the form (11.14). Zajjaj, as the summary in AP IA shows, devotes a good deal more space to lexical definitions than does Farra'. 3.6.2.6 One further example The foregoing remarks, I think, offer an adequate sample of the two ma'ani works; further exemplification is best left for a more detailed study. I would, however, like to make one more observation which I would suggest illustrates the continuity of the Ma'ani tradition on the one hand and its interrelationship to the grammatical tradition on the other. The issue involves Zajjaj's analysis of al-Baqara 19/63, §hadar-a l-mawt-i "guarding against death". Zajjaj analyzes hadar-a as a reason object, mafuwl lahu, explaining that "its a-inf form is not because of the deletion of the li- but rather that

32

FARRA' AS LINGUIST

it is considered as a verbal noun, as if one said yahduruwna hadar-an Q 15 "they guard against guarding" (hadaran = absolute object, a verbal noun). To better understand his explanation I think it relevant to look first at Sibawayh's, then at Farra's treatment of the same topic. Sibawayh terms such constructions "the object for which" (reason object, maf'uwl lahu, I; 154, 155), explaining that Q 16 It is a-inf because it is an 'object for iť [reason object], as if it were said 'why did you do such and such a thing', and you replied 'for such and such a reason' [li-kadaa "for-such and such"] but when the li- [i.e. of li-kadaa] is deleted it is governed by what precedes (it) [i.e. the verb]. 155.12 Sibawayh then proceeds to indicate why it must be given an independent functional status (it is not a haal, does not take the place of a verbal noun, etc.). Sibawayh assumes that such structures as (11)

fa'al-tu daaka hidaar-a did-I that guarding-a "I did that to protect myself from evil".

l-sirr-i def-evil

155.1

can be interpreted with the preposition li- "for" (= li-hidaar-i), but since this preposition does not occur it receives a-inf form rather than i-inf by the separation and non-identity principle (Carter 1972a, 6.2 below). As seen above, Zajjaj rejects the interpretation whereby an ellipted li- is to be interpreted. To answer why he changes the explanation I think Farra's explanation of the same Quranic passage is relevant. After establishing that the a-inf form of hadara is not to be interpreted as a direct object, he says Q 17 Its a-inf form is by interpretation (tafsiyr), and not (governed) by the verb. It is like the verse yad'uwnanaa ragab-an wa rahb-an "They summoned us torn between greed and fear". Its a-inf form is not to be accounted for by deletion of min "from", which is used merely to clarify the construction for beginners. 17.9 Farra' does not give the construction a categorical name, though he emphasizes two points similarly present in Zajjaj; the a-inf form is not to be explained by reference to a deleted preposition and moreover its function is that of explanation tafsiyr. The details admittedly are different. In Farra' the assumed preposition would be min, in Zajjaj li. For Farra' the grammatical construction tafsiyr corresponds most closely to the later specifier (tamyiyz, cf. 7.1.2). The second parallel resides in the fact that for both a circumlocution is involved, for Farra tafsiyr (cf. 7.1.2) and for Zajjaj interpretation of a cognate verb. The structural parallels thus suggest a certain influence on Zajjaj, that Zajjaj's treatment integrates Sibawayh's grammatical description with Farra's exegetical.


33

Certain differences of detail between Farra's and Zajjaj's approach to Quranic exegesis appear in this brief summary. The overall approach, in particular the emphasis on an explication of the morphophonology, syntax and lexis of Quranic passages is not different, however. Style, methodology and goals are similar, a point which further reinforces the contention that Farra's linguistic methodology was different in detail but not in principle from other grammarians.

3.7 Conclusion

In this short introduction I hope to have shown that Farra's linguistic thinking does merit the designation 'theory', representing a systematically articulated structural complex. I do not thereby wish to understate either the danger of comparing one author with another on the basis of books of different genre, or the formal differences between Farra' and other linguists (Dévényi 1987). So far as the first caveat goes the exigencies of Quranic exegesis no doubt impose different sorts of constraints from straight linguistic analysis. One can well imagine for example that meaning must be given a higher degree of priority, as indeed Farra' has a reputation for doing (cf. 8.1). Although an adequate consideration of such genrerelated determinants is outside the scope of this study, the comparison between Farra's and Zajjaj's Ma'aaniy nevertheless indicates that 'Kufan' and 'Basran' approaches to Quranic exegesis were not qualitatively different. In his basic methodology and usually in his specific analyses as well, Farra' falls within the mainstream of Arabic linguistic thinking and indeed in the following chapters it will be seen that in a number of cases he played a crucial role in determining its direction.

35

IV SIBAWAYH'S METHODOLOGY

Sibawayh's achievement was a considerable one; he provided a comprehensive framework for the description of all the facts of Arabic, and while it can be assumed that he was working in an intellectual milieu in which Arabic grammar was receiving prominent attention (cf. § 10, 11), there were, so far as we Know, no complete grammars upon which he could develop his description. The best Sibawayh could do was solicit the opinion of such grammar specialists as Xalil and Yunus on particular grammatical problems; the comprehensive context for the interpretation and presentation of these ideas, however, Sibawayh himself devised. The basic methodology he used was simple but effective. Certain items were identified as typically occurring at certain grammatical positions. Sometimes these positions are explicitly named and clearly have an existence independent of the items that realize the position; in other cases the positions at which the items occur are not named but nonetheless implicitly have a fixed status within the overall grammatical structure. Very often a position is identified in conjunction with a typical filler, and other members of the paradigm, often morphologically or syntactically more complex, are identified relative to this typical filler. The methodological basis of this system, as Carter (1973a) has pointed out, is reminiscent of the practices developed by American structuralists in the 1930's and 1940's, though it should be emphasized that at no point does Sibawayh make this methodology explicit (cf. Versteegh 1978) and his terminology is far from fixed (Versteegh 1987: 155). He is not interested in developing 'grammar discovery procedures', but rather in explicating the structure of Arabic, and for whatever reason -- by coincidence, because the contemplation of language structure inevitably leads to such analytical strategies - used methods employed in modernday linguistics. In this chapter I will outline Sibawayh's technique of substitution, first summarizing the functions which it serves, then taking up points related to this theme, and finally comparing Sibawayh's methodology to that of Sarraj.

4.1 Sibawayh's Use of Substitution

As an initial approximation the use Sibawayh makes of substitution can be summarized under four categories: to define a given grammatical function, to define the distribution of a particular item, to deduce the correct form of an item, and to define its meaning. These of course are not mutually exclusive categories.

36

SIBAWAYH'S METHODOLOGY

To define the inflectional form of an item is to define its function; by defining the distribution of an item one simultaneously adds information about the nature of the grammatical function it serves, and so on. In any particular case, however, Sibawayh's emphasis can often be seen to be one of these categories or another. 4.1.1 Grammatical function Grammatical functions, what might also be termed syntactic positions, can be defined according to their inherent content, by definition as it were, and they can be defined by what 1items occur in them, by an extensional listing. With certain exceptions, the haal (5.3.1.2) and darf (7.2.1) for example, Sibawayh's favored method was by and large the latter. He nowhere for example says what a topic (mubtada'/'ibtidaa'), comment xabar, or direct object (maf'uwl bihi) is even though he makes frequent reference to these functions, as when he notes that kam "how many" can occur as agent, object or circumstance (250.13), while laa gulaama in (1)

laa gulaama no boy "You have no boy".

laka to-you

is "in the position of topic" (300.16, 301.4). In most cases the function is, implicitly, taken as the independent variable; the existence of the function is assumed and is used to explain the status of a particular item, as in the two examples just cited. In some instances, however, the nature of the function is itself at issue. (2)

danantu zayd-an huwa il-'aaqil-a thought I zayd-a he def-intelligent-a "I thought that Zayd was the intelligent one".

Here Sibawayh (347.13) criticizes those linguists who hold huwa to be a qualifier, sifa, saying inter alia that it cannot be such because pronouns do not serve as qualifiers to overt nouns. The categorical status of the pronoun in this construction is discussed further in 8.2.2. The maf'uwl ma'hu, accompaniment object, also appears to be a function Sibawayh seems obliged to justify.

Translations of haal include Wright's (II: 112) "state and condition", Reckendorfs (92) "Prädikativum" and Carter's (1981: 367) "circumstantial qualifier". The question of translations of technical Arabic linguistic terms is a vexing one. Though desirable, it is frequently not immediately clear what the best term is. In the case of the haal I see no broad consensus and do not feel myself in a position to decide among the proposals or suggest a new one. Hence I leave the Arabic term untranslated. In other cases, like the specifier (= tamyiyz) a greater degree of consensus exists (e.g. Wright II: 123 "specification", Carter 1981: 380 "specification", Reckendorf 94 "Spezialisierung", Justice 1987: 290 "specification".)


(3)

37

maa sana'-ta wa 'ab-aa-ka what made-you and father-a-you "What did you make with your father".

'Abaaka is "an accompaniment and direct object" (125.11) and cannot be considered "on the verb" ('alaa l-fi'l), by which Sibawayh appears to mean an agent because, for example, (4a)

*'uq'ud sit

wa and

'axuw-ka brother-u-your

125.21

is incorrect. The point here is that wa in (3) must be paraphrased with ma'a "with" (4b)

maa

sana'-ta

ma'a 'ab-iy-ka 125.13 with father-i-your forming in this instance a substitution class with a preposition (wa/ma'a); it is not to be taken as a conjunct because an overt noun cannot occur as conjunct after a bound or understood pronoun. Rather than (4a) one must have (4c)

'uq'ud 'anta wa 'ax-uw-ka sit you and brother-u-your "You and your brother sit down"

with the conjunct preceded by the disjunctive pronoun 'anta (cf. Ayoub 1987: 4, 11 for further discussion of this example). In this explanation Sibawayh is at pains to identify the special properties of the function, accompaniment object. 4.1.2 Distribution of items More often, however, substitution techniques are employed to clarify the status of various types of items. For instance, 'am "or", occurs before man "who" and other Q nouns, but not before the Q particle 'a "yes-no?" because 'a and 'am belong to the same class of Q particles and hence do not co-occur (I: 440.14). To take another example, (5a)

maa 'ataaniy not came-me "No man came to me".

min from

rajul-in man-i

I:240.17

has no u-inf agent. Min rajulin, however, is in the position of rajul-un, as can be ascertained by comparison with (5b)

maa 'ataaniy rajul-un neg came-me man-u "No man came to me".

where the expected u-inf agent appears, and hence (5a) can be analyzed according to the canomcal V-ag (verbal) sentence type, with a prepositional phrase in agent position.

38


The occurrence of 'inna "indeed", a particle that normally occurs only sentence initially, after hattaa "until" is justified because hattaa is of a class with 'idaa "if which similarly occurs before 'inna. (6a)

hattaa 'innahu yaf'al-u until indeed-he does "Until indeed he does that".

daaka that

368.3

(6b)

fa-'idaa 'innahu yafalu daaka and-if indeed-he "And if indeed he does that" Quite often the substitution is called upon to establish the status of a dependent sentence, probably because sentences do not have an inflectional form that represents their dependent function. For example, a relative clause has the status of a single noun as shown by the substitution of the relative clause, as in (7a,b) (7a)

(7b)

huwa lladiy fa'ala he who did "He is the one who did (it)". marartu bi rajul-in passed-I by man-i

illadiy who

yaquwlu says

daaka that

for the active participle (8a)

(8b)

huwa i-faa'il-u 362.1 he def-doer-u "He is the doer" ( = one who does) marartu bi rajul-in qaa'il-in daaka saying that "I passed by the man saying that". (= "the sayer of that")

242.1

In the (b) examples of (7, 8) Sibawayh explicitly notes that the nominative form of yaquwlu (7b) is not relevant to its adjectival function, and that "an item can occur in the position of another one without taking its inflectional form" (241.23, also 57.4). Similar substitution techniques are used to show that a verbal complement of kaana "be" is analyzable as a single word filler of comment position (415.17, 427.13), and a finite noun clause is equivalent to a corresponding verbal noun. (9)

'illaa 'anna-hum qaal-uw except that-they said-pl "except that they said" = 'illaa qawl-u-hum except saying-u-their "except their saying/their expression"

322.11

39


(cf. Carter 1973a: 155 for further discussion and exemplification.) 4.1.3 Form Substitution techniques are frequently called upon to explicate the form of items. In (10)

marartu bi rajul-in

hasan-in good-i "I passed a man whose father is good".

'ab-uw-hu father-u-his

195.2

hasanin agrees with rajulin in inflectional form even though it describes 'abuwhu. This is explained by the fact that in general the adjective in this construction can take the position of a noun. (11a) = (11b)

marartu bi l-rajul-i l-kariym-i "I passed a generous man". marartu bi l-kariym-i "I passed the generous (one)".

195.7

Hence the governor (bi) of the nounQ 18(rajulin) in (11a) can equally determine the form of a qualifier (hasanin) after it. Against this, in (12)

marartu bi sahiyfat-in tiyn-un (*tiyn-in) passed tablet-i clay-u (*-i) "I passed a tablet whose seal was of clay". 195.10

xaatam-u-hu seal-u-its

tiynun cannot agree in i-inf with the noun sahiyfatin because it is not a qualifier and hence could not assume the position of an item it modifies (since it does not in fact modify like a qualifier does). The form of the noun muslimiy in (13)

laa muslim-iy laka no Muslim-pl to you "You have no Muslims".

301.17

with the plural -n deleted is explained by the similarity of this construction to the possessive (14)

laa muslim-iy-ka no Muslim-pl-your

The plural -n (muslim-iyna) is regularly dropped in a possessive construction; it is also dropped before the preposition li- "to, for" because of the meaning similarity, and, implicitly, because of the positional identity as well, both li- and a possessor noun or pronoun directly following the 'possessed' noun. In one important case the explanation of form in a complement involves a member of a substitution paradigm which is a morphologically bound form, namely

40


the case of 'isruwna dirham-an "20 dirhams", which will be discussed more fully in 6.2 and 7.1 (cf. Carter 1972a). In this context it is relevant to note that the substitution need not always be between overt items, and indeed Sibawayh explains a great number of constructions on the basis of a non-overt syntactic position whose presence must nonetheless be assumed to guarantee a correct interpretation (cf. Baalbaki 1979: 814). He points out for example that certain morphemes require that a verb immediately follow them; these include sawfa "future", qad "perfective", and lam "negative past". (15a)

lam 'adrib-hu neg I hit-him "I didn't hit him".

He then explains that in (15b)

lam zayd-an neg zayd-a "I didn't hit Zayd".

'adrib-hu

40.2

should this be required for poetic purposes, (and he does not fully approve of it) zaydan must be governed in a-inf form by an ellipted (mudmar2) verb because lam belongs to the class of particles requiring a verb directly after it. (16a)

lam

= (16b) lam

0

zayd-an

'adribhu

'adrib

zayd-an

'adribhu

There is a covert position between lam and zaydan filled by the implicit substitution of a verb, and this determines the a-inf in zaydan.Q 19 4.1.4 Meaning Meaning relatively rarely was the central point of Sibawayh's exposition, though in the process of describing particular constructions Sibawayh often distinguishes subtle differences of meaning. To give one example, either (17a)

siyra alayhi yawm-u l-jum'ati gudwat-a gone on him day-u Friday early morning-a "On Friday early in the morning it was traveled with him".

94.1

or (17b)

siyra alayhi yawm-a l-jum'ati gudwat-u "In the early morning on Friday it was traveled with him".

Whether or not mudmar is indifferently translated as "ellipted" or "deleted" is an issue left for further research; cf. Ayoub (1987: 5-7) on 'idmaar as a process performed by the speaker.

41


describes the action as taking place at a certain time during the early morning of Friday. fiy yawm-i l-jum'ati fiy haadihi in day-i Friday in this "It was traveled with him on Friday at this hour"

= (17c) siyra 'alayhi

l-saa'ati def-hour

This stands opposed to (18a)

siyra'alayhi

yawm-u l-jum'ati gudwat-u day-u morning-u "It was traveled with him on Friday, the early morning".

where gudwatu is an appositive, badal (cf. 5.1.3), Sibawayh comparing this to (18b)

duriba l-qawm-u ba'd-u-hum hit def-people-u some-u-them "The people were hit, some of them".

In defining the syntactic structure of these constructions Sibawayh brings out the different meanings of each by paraphrasing them with the different types of substitution classes they are associated with, (17a/b) being compared with the prepositional structures of (17c), (18a) with the substitute constituent of (18b).

4.2 Techniques

A fuller picture of the status of substitution in Sibawayh's thinking can be gained by taking a closer look at some of the techniques Sibawayh used. 4.2.1 Negative evidence The independent status of the various functional positions is not infrequently highlighted when Sibawayh notes that certain items are prohibited from occurring at them. Indefinite qualifiers, for instance, do not occur in a position occupied by a noun (96.5,114.7,122.16, 237.7). Certain verbal nouns can occur as haal, as in (19a)

huwa l-rajul-u 'ilm-an he def-man-u learning-a ('ilm,fiqh = VN) He is a man in learning and knowledge".

wa and

fiqh-an 163.12 knowledge-a

though generally nouns do not have this privilege of occurrence. (19b)

3

*huwa l-rajulu xayl-an he def-man-u horse-a 3 *"He is the man as a horse"

163.12

Sibawayh uses these two points to support his contention that the u-inf should be used in

42

SIBAWAYH's METHODOLOGY

The status of ka zaydin "like Zayd" and sawaa'aka "like you" as locatives (darf) is confirmed by sentences like (20a) marartu bi man ka zayd-in/sawaa'-a-ka/*faadil-un who like Zayd-i/like-a-you/*eminent-u "I passed someone like Zayd/like you/*eminent". 172.16 where the sentential complement to a relative pronoun {man here) can be a selfstanding locative, cf. (20b)

marartubi

man fiy-haa who in-it "I passed by the one who was in it".

but not a qualifier (like faadilan) or a non-locative noun. 4.2.2 Item for item; item at position The at times makeshift nature of Sibawayh's classificatory schema (cf. 4.2.4 below) is, I think, indicated by his practice of sometimes referring to the substitution of an item at a functional position, sometimes for another item. In (21)

'a ra'ay-ta zayd-an 'ab-uw Q saw-you Zayd-a father-u "Did you see whom Zayd was the father of'?

man who

huwa he

101.17

The boldface complement is identified as "in the position of a second [object] complement", that is as occurring at a functional position (cf. also 250.13, 252.7, 363.15, 415.17). On the other hand Sibawayh shows that the phrase faahu 'ilaa fiyya has the status of a haal by substituting it with a noun in a-inf form. (22a)

(22b)

kallam-tu-hu faa-hu 'ilaa spoke-I-him mouth-his to I spoke to him personally". kallamtuhu musafaahat-an oral-a "I spoke to him personally".

fiyya mouth my

165.5

He does not directly say that faahu 'ilaa fiyya is in the position of haal, though this is clear enough from the chapter heading. He finds it more graphic perhaps to establish the status of the construction by substitution with a single noun.

'amma l-'abiyd-u fa d-uw (*daa) as for def-slaves-u and possessing-u (*-a) "As for slaves, he possesses them", where duw is not a verbal noun and hence cannot take a-inf form.

'abiyd-in slaves

43


To mention two more examples of this type, in 327.1 we learn that wherever the exception can be marked by 'illaa "except" it can also be marked by gayr "except"; 'illaa and gayr are identified by their mutual substitution properties. As seen in (11) above, kariym agrees with the preceding noun because it can substitute for it. 4.2.3 Analogical substitution In the examples considered so far the substitution classes are paradigmatically arranged; the items that substitute for each other do so at the same position. Sibawayh also extends his technique to bring together items within the same substitution class which nonetheless do not strictly speaking occur at the same position. This technique might be termed 'analogical substitution'. Two examples of this occur in the generic negative laa, where he notes that (23)

laa gulaam-a wa jaariyat-a-n no boy-a and neighbor-a-indef "There is no boy or neighbor in it".

fiy-haa in-it

305.8

requires indefinite form on jaariyatan because it is separated from laa by wa; it is not possible here for laa + jaariyatan to have the status of a single noun (yielding *laa...jaariyat-a) just as if one separated xamsata and 'asara in a compound numeral as in, (24a)

*xamsata 5

wa and

'asara 10

305.9

one would (hypothetically) need to reinstate the indefinite -n, as in (24b)

xamsata-n "15"

wa

'asarata-n 301.2

The general principle that unites the two cases is that two words can form a compound, and when this happens the compound word acquires a fixed, unalterable form (mabniy). Compound words cannot, however, contain extraneous morphemic material, and if they do (24b) they revert to their 'original' form (cf. Carter 1973a: 156). In the present comparison, however, (25a) laa + N

+

N

(b)

laa + N

+

wa

+ N /\

digits

+

tens

xamsata

+

wa

+ 'asara

the items do not really form a substitution class, as (25) indicates; laa + N for instance cannot be substituted before the tens place in numerals. The compoundword principle involved is the same, however, and it is on the basis of this that an analogical substitution is built. On the same topic he notes (§ 177) that if a noun is followed by a complement which completes it in some way, the indefinite -n of the noun cannot be deleted because it is not, as it were, at the end of the word.

44 (26a)

(26b)


laa xayr-a-n minhu neg good-a from it "There is no good from it for you". laa xayr-a minhu good-a

laka for you laka

Xayran never stands alone; it requires a complement, in this case minhu, and hence the indefinite -n on xayra-n does not have the status of a word-final element. In this context he says the indefinite -n (tanwiyn) is like a non-final added morphemic sound, like the -w- of madruwb "beaten" or the a of madaarib "campsites". Implicitly the substitution class is (27)

laa

xayra-

madru

n

minhu

w

b

A

mada

a

ribQ

20

where the indefinite -n has the same status as the -w- of the passive participle or the plural infix a. The substitution, however, can only be analogically understood.4 A third example of analogical substitution is nicely clarified by Levin (1985: 339-340). He notes that Sibawayh wants to distinguish the function of zaydan, identically marked with a-inf in (28a)

'adunnu zayd-an muntaliq-an I think Zayd-a leaving-a "I think Zayd to be leaving".

49.6

and (28b)

darabtu hit I "I hit Zayd".

zayd-an Zayd-a

31.13

On the one hand in both examples zaydan is a direct object. On the other, in the first zaydan corresponds to the topic, mubtada', and to the mabniyy'alaal-mubtada\ comment, in the second. The way in which zaydan in (28a) corresponds to the topic is clear; its function is exactly that of zaydun in the nominal sentence

4

This comparison of syntactic and morpho-phonplogical levels calls to mind the much more widespread comparison of these levels in the 10 century 'usuwl tradition; cf. for e.g. Farisi, 'Aqsaam: 206.


45

(29)

zayd-un muntaliq-un Topic Comment {mabniyy 'alaa l-mubtada') "Zayd is leaving". Zaydan in (28b), however, corresponds to the mabniyy 'alaa l-mubtada not in the sense that it is substituting at the comment position, which as object of daraba it clearly is not, but rather in the sense that both an object of a transitive verb and the comment of a nominal sentence make a sentence complete. Mabniyy 'alaa lmubtada' in this context signifies "that position which makes a sentence complete", a formulation which allows Sibawayh to bring together within one category items which have distinct distributions (at object/comment position). 4.2.4 Cue words In 4.2.2 it was mentioned that Sibawayh not infrequently explains the status of one word or larger construction B by virtue of its substitution possibilities with another word or larger construction A, which is often more basic in some sense than B. Sometimes A is identified as having a certain function, like agent or topic, sometimes it is not, and often when its function is clearly stated in one place, in another it is not. In any case, unless one knows what the status of A is, it is difficult to deduce that of B and one of the problems in Sibawayh's style resides in the fact that the status of A is sometimes explained after that of B. One of the keys to reading Sibawayh is not looking for what functions he is discussing (cf. 4.1.1) but rather knowing the identity and status of the word or construction A that serves as archetypical member of its class. I term this the 'cue word' (even where 'cue phrase' may be more appropriate).5 The best example of this practice concerns the a-inf form in the complement in examples like (30)

(30)

'isruwna dirham-an 20 dirham-a "20 dirhams" liy mi0l-u-hu to me like-u-him "I have a slave like him".

'abd-an slave-a

The a-inf complement here has no categorical name, no explicitly mentioned function beyond that of 'complements of the type 'isruwna dirhaman'. 'Isruwna dirhaman is the cue word, representing a specific type of construction, one that later became known as the tamyiyz (cf. 7.1). As Carter (1972a) shows, this cue word serves to characterize and explain a whole range of structures (cf. 6.2.1.2, 7.1 for exemplification); nevertheless, the cue word is referred to twice (16.5, 38.18) before it is actually explained (85.5), and it is quite impossible to fully follow the relevant discussion unless the cue word, 'isruwna dirhaman, is itself understood. As the lexical correlate of this phenomenon, Götz (1957: xiii-xvi) points out that Sibawayh uses a conventionalized vocabulary to represent various types of word classes. Daraba "hit", for example, represents transitive verbs in general, dahaba "go" and 'ataa "come" motion verbs, marra bi "pass by" a verb whose 'object' is governed by a preposition, and so on.

46


There are other cases where a construction is either exclusively or provisionally identified by cue word alone. 4.2.4.1 By cue word only There is a construction in which a predicate is represented only by a verbal noun in a-inf (cf. Baalbaki 1979:14). (31a) (31b)

saqiy-an 131.1 "May God give you rain". hamd-an 133.18 praise-a "Oh praise"!

The a-inf is explained by postulating an assumed verb which governs it. (32a)

(32b)

saqaa-ka llaahu saqiy-an 131.7 (invocation) rain-you God raining "God sent you rain". 'ahmada llaahu hamd-an 133.20 (non-invocation) praised God praise-a "God praised (a praising)".

Such constructions are collectively known as an "a-inf whose verb is ellipted" (130.20, 133.17), the a-inf in the full sentences (32) having the function of an absolute object (maf'uwl mutlaq) of the later grammarians (e.g. Sarraj I:159). Sibawayh, however, gives them no functional name, though he does identify them generally as being part of the transitivity system (1.6), and hence by implication to be types of objects. Various sub-classes of verbal-noun sentences are identified, those which represent an invocation (§61), those which do not (§65), etc., though these classes are conventionally identified not by a functional name but rather by a typical member of the relevant paradigm, which indeed is termed baab x, "of the category x", where x is the cue word (cf. 39.17, 51.17, 155.11, 156.4, 161.16 for saqiyan as cue word, 156.4/17, 161.16 for hamdan). 4.2.4.2 Cue word and function In other cases a cue word will also be used, though at some point a specific functional name is given to the position. For example (33a)

haadaa 'abdu llaahi this Abdullahi Top Com "This is Abdullahi leaving".

muntaliq-un leaving Com

220.15

is given two possible analyses, one of which is indicated. Later the u-inf of muntaliqun in


(33b)

47

haadaa man 'a'rifu muntaliq-un this who I know leaving-u "This is the one I know, leaving".

is simply explained "as based on the expression haadaa abdu llaahi muntaliqun" ( = 33a, 230.22), with no explicit mention of its functional analysis. The reader must parse the sentence for themselves (man a'rifu/muntaliqun = comments). In chapters 120 and 121 Sibawayh explains that one can have either (34a)

fiy-haa zayd-un in-it Zayd-u x Top "In it Zayd is standing".

qaa'im-un standing-u Com

223.2

or (34b)

fiy-haa Com

zayd-un Top

qaa'im-an haal

222.15

where fiyhaa serves either as comment, in which case qaa'iman takes a-inf form as haal (34b), or is treated as an extraneous item (mulgiy) whose functional status is effectively ignoredQ 21 (34a, represented by 'x', cf. Carter 1973a: 156 for further discussion). Earlier (§93) Sibawayh explains that one can have either (35a)

al-saa'-u laka saat-un bi def-sheep-u to you sheep-u for "You can have the sheep for one dirham each".

dirham-in dirham-i

al-saa'-u

dirhamin

167.15

or (35b)

laka

saat-an -a

bi

just as one can have either (34a) or (34b), quoting the examples in (34a/b). Sibawayh considers the mention of the cue word to be sufficient and leaves a more detailed explanation till later, the reader being left to work out the relation between laka and u-inf/laka and a-inf in (35a/b). Similarly 'ayna in (36)

'ayna t-araa zayd-an where you-see zayd-a "Where do you see Zayd"?

50.5

must be of the class (= manzila) of fiyhaa in (34a) because it has no effect on the inflectional form of zaydan (it being governed by taraa). The full explanation emerges, however, only some 170 pages later. Of note here is his use of manzila for "class", a point that will be discussed further in 4.2.5.3. Other examples of cue words are bi sahiyfatintiynunxaatamuhu "by a tablet whose seal is of clay" (195.10, 235.5), 'anta rajulun 'ilman "you are a man in learning"

48


(161.17, 235-15), marartu bi sarjin xazzun suffatuhu "I passed a saddle whose molding was of silk" (195.9, 197.4, 197.20), haadaa rajulun wafiyl-daari axaru kariymayni "This is a man, and in the house is another, both generous" (211.6, 248.17). 4.2.5 Typical and less typical It remains to point out that Sibawayh had a simple and pervasive technique governing his use of substitution, namely to proceed from a typical to a less typical construction, to define the latter in terms of the former. Baalbaki (1979: 15 ff.) speaks here in terms of hierarchy; markedness (unmarked/marked) might be a referable metaphor (Owens 1988 §8). Whatever designation is used, Sibawayh ad a method to structure his substitution; the following points can be read in conjunction with Carter (1973a) and Baalbaki (1979).

p

4.2.5.1 Basic member of word class The basic particle marking the exception is 'illaa, and Sibawayh has an extensive discussion of its syntax (314-326). After this he considers other morphemes that can mark the exception and defines them relative to the basic particle 'illaa. Gayr "except", for example, can occur where 'llaa can (327.1). 'In is the basic morpheme marking conditional classes (I: 56.2, Baalbaki 1979: 16), more basic than such conditionals as man "whoever", maa "whatever". 4.2.5.2 Typical form Though he nowhere says so explicitly,6 Sibawayh operates under the assumption that each function is represented by a typical inflectional form. There are instances, however, where this form does not appear (cf. e.g. (5) above). In (37a)

laa rajul-a no man-a "You have no man".

laka to you

301.4, ff.

He does, however, come close to saying so when he opposes mawdi' "position" to form. (a) maa zayd-un bi 'axiy-ka wa laa saahib-a-ka 25.21 not zayd-u brother-i-your and not friend-a-your "Zayd is neither your brother nor your friend". Saahibaka agrees not in the i-inf with 'axiyka, even though it is coordinated with it, but rather has its form determined by a governance property oîmaa Maa can govern an a-inf. (b) maa zayd-un saahib-a-ka "Zayd is not your friend" or it can take a prepositional complement bi which in turn governs the noun in the i-inf. (c) maa zayd-un bi-saahib-i-ka "Zayd is not your friend". The second N of a conjunct of a NP occurring in the position of (c), i.e. after a preposition, can then either have its form determined by the preposition or by maa (b), since the prepositional phrase stands in the position of complement to maa (cf. Owens, to appear b). The a-inf is explicable only if it is recognized that Sibawayh associated this position with a typical inflection, the a-inf.

49


(37b)

maa min rajul-in laka neg from man-i to you "You have no man". Sibawayh shows that laa rajula and min rajulin are in topic position although they have the wrong inflectional form; rajul-a has -a determined by the generic negative laa, rajulin in (37b) has i-inf determined by the preposition min. To establish his point he cites a hypothetical construction (one Yunus heard from Bedouins) (37c)

maa rajul-un 'afdal-u not man-u better-u "There is no one better than you".

minka than you

301.10

where rajulun has the expected u-inf. The status of the atypical (37a/b) is clarified relative to the formally typical (37c). 4.2.5.3 Typical position, typical class member Perhaps less frequently Sibawayh clarifies the status of an item in one position by reference to its occurrence in a more typical one. In this way the sentential complement (38a)

'alim-tu 'a 'abdu llaahi Gamma 'am learned-I Q Abdullah there or "I learned whether Abdullah or Zayd was there". 99.18

zayd-un zayd-u

is explained as being in the object position (mawdi'al-mafuwl), in the same way one has a sentential complement in (38b)

'abdu llaahi [hal ra'ay-ta-hu]s Top Com = S Abdullah Q saw-you-him "As for Abdullah, did you see him"?

99.20

A dependent sentence unmarked by a complementizer more typically occurs in the comment than the object position, examples of which Sibawayh had already discussed (44.1, 52.18, 62.23), and so (38b) serves to explain the distribution of a sentence unmarked by complementizer in object position (38a). The relation between two items can alternatively be expressed as The substitution of one item for another. Not infrequently this relation is represented as one of manula? As Versteegh (1978: 269) and Ayoub (1987: 9, 10) point out, Manzila is also used inter alia in reference to a general class, for example the class of intransitive verbs (14.16) and to an itenťs occurring at a function (349.13). At the same time there are arguably a minority of instances where in the formula, 'y of the manzila of x' y and x are essentially correlative. When Sibawayh characterizes the noun zaydan in danantu zaydan kariyman "I thought Zayd generous" as being of the same class {manzila) as the verb danna "...in that [the noun] requires a comment just as [the verb] requires a complement topic" (346.17), i.e. just as a topic in a nominal sentence requires a comment, so verbs like danna require a noun (with the status topic, which in turn requires a comment). The topic requires a commment just

50


manzila pertains to the mutual substitutability of items which, however, are not precisely equivalent. As Versteegh's formulation hints, the manzila relation is often (not always, cf. n. 7 above) an asymmetrical one: 'y is of the manzila of x' implies that x is in some sense the basic, unmarked item. Hence in examples (34a/36) discussed above (34a) fiyhaa zaydun qaa 'imun "Zayd is in it standing". (36) 'ayna taraa zaydan "Where do you see Zayd"? 'ayna is said to be of the manzila of fiyhaa, not the reverse, because, as explained in 4.2.4.2 (34a) represents the paradigmatic instance of a preposed locative complement. Manzila representing an asymmetrical relation is found inter alia in 28.8, 133.12 (Ayoub 1987: 9), 241.5 (Versteegh 1978: 269), 167.16, 241.4/6, 347.8, etc.). 4.2.5.4 Simple and complex Sibawayh explains complex forms in terms of simpler ones, and this is often related to the phenomenon discussed in 4.2.5.2; complex items like dependent sentences and prepositional phrases do not bear an inflectional marker delimiting the function of the item in a larger context, whereas single words do, hence they more perspicaciously reflect a given function. On this basis Sibawayh distinguishes the distribution of the 'funereal' -aah. It can be suffixed at the end of a phrase consisting of pssd + pssr (39a)

waa 'amiyra l-mu'miniyn-aah oh prince def-believers-aah "Oh prince of the believers"!

281.4

because pssd + pssr have the status of a single noun. It cannot, however, be suffixed after N + qualifier (39b)

*waa zayd-un l-dariyf-aah 281.1

because qualifiers and nouns do not form a similar unity. One would instead have, (39c)

waa zayd-aah l-dariyf-u oh Zayd-aah def-kind-u "Oh Zayd the kind one"!

as a verb of the class danna requires a complement and hence it is hard to see one as more basic than the other.


51

4.3 Sibawayh and Sarraj

4.3.1 Class and substitution The basic notion of a class of items substituting at fixed positions in structure is maintained throughout the history of the Arabic grammatical tradition. Between Sibawayh and Sarraj, however, can be discerned a significant difference in the style of presentation; Sarraj gives far greater prominence to the independent status of the functional positions or positions as I will term them8 and correspondingly less to the items that fill them. That is, far more than in Sibawayh, items in Sarraj are identified relative to the position they fill, their occurrence at a position giving them as it were their identity. Sarraj's al-'Usuwl fi l-Nahw, in fact, is organized on the basis of a fixed set of functional positions the items occurring at each being exhaustively described. For example, the second position he describes is the comment (I: 62-72). He gives the major categories which can fill the comment position, either a sentence which he classifies into verbal and nominal types (64) and which contains a pronoun referential with the topic (62), or a single noun, which can be either a locative (darf) or non-locative noun (63). Locatives in turn are divided into time and place, and co-occurrence restrictions between topic and locative comment are discussed. (40), for instance, is disallowed. (40)

*zaydun il-yawm-a Zayd-u today-a *"Zayd is today".

Within this methodology the substitution of item for item, prominent in Sibawayh's work (cf. 4.1.3, 4.2.2, 4.2.4), largely gives way to substitution of items at a position. More than this, however, Sarraj gives other information about the comment: it is the unit which combines with the topic to make a sentence (62); it can be verified as true or false; it has four specific distributions of definiteness and indefiniteness vis à vis the topic (65-68),Q 22 and under specific conditions, some pragmatically controlled, it can be deleted (68-72). Comment is more than a set of items filling a position; for Sarraj it is an abstract entity characterized by a variegated complex of defining attributes. It is true that Sibawayh also in one place or another mentions most of the characteristics that Sarraj outlines. One learns that nominals (39.17, 218.9, 239.8), locatives (§ 98) and sentences (39.17, 44.1, 52.18, 62.23, 415.7), which must contain a pronoun co-referential with the topic (31.17), can occur as comment. The comment is typically indefinite (17.10/13), or less definite than topic (137.17), but can (20.10) or must (348.1) be indefinite in some contexts, and it can be deleted (240.6). As can be discerned from the scattering of page references, however, there is a difference of emphasis, for Sibawayh nowhere summarizes the properties of comment in one place. Rather, these characteristics emerge in the discussion and The Arabic grammarians did not sharply distinguish between position and fonction, cf. Owens 1988: 34.

52

SIBAWAYH'S M E T H O D O L O G Y

comparison of specific examples and as often as not are identified by the substitution for items that typically occur as comment as by the explicit statement that they occur at the comment position. 4.3.2 Polish and methodology In two further respects Sibawayh's presentation of Arabic grammar is distinguished from that of Sarraj and later grammarians, both relating to his use of substitution. 4.3.2.1 Polish It was noted in 4.2.4.1 that Sibawayh distinguishes a number of functional categories by the archetypical filler of the position, the cue word. 'Isruwna dirhaman "20 dirhams" is the signature of what could come to be known as the tamyiyz (7.1); saqyan identifies the sub-class of verbal nouns that in vocative sentences stand in for the verb. In this respect Sibawayh's terminology is virtually indistinguishable from the substitution methodology itself, deriving directly from it: what substitutes for 'isruwna dirhaman can be identified by it. In other cases, and this is the morphological correlate of the previous point, one finds Sibawayh identifying word classes simply by their canonical shape. Perfect and imperfect verbs, for example, besides being termed fi'l il-maadiyandfi'l il-mudaari' are often simply identified by their canonical shape, fa'ala (for perfect, e.g. 45.6, 398.8) and yaf'ulu (for imperfect, 46.5, 54.6, 54.15, 398.18, cf. n. 5 above). In still other cases one finds Sibawayh identifying the criteria for the establishment of a supra and/or sub-class without going so far as to give a name to the phenomenon. As will be discussed at length in (5.2-5.4), he implicitly distinguishes the class of noun complements that would become known as tawaabi', "concordants" and its various sub-classes, though the terminology becomes explicit only with Sarraj. In all three of these examples Sibawayh's treatment lacks the polish of later grammarians, even if the categories he distinguishes are essentially the same. The movement among the later grammarians is away from a formal identification of grammatical constructions towards a more functional characterization. To be sure the functional definition depends on 9formal properties of the structure, though as seen in 4.3.1 it is not limited to these. In general, this movement reflects an increasing abstraction in the characterization of grammatical constructions in the sense that a grammatical position itself is an abstraction; it is defined by the properties of the various items It is traditionally assumed (cf. Haarman 1974: 160) that Sarraj's organizational methodology was inspired by philosophical practice, particularly that of al-Farabi. To my knowledge, however, it has never been shown where this influence manifests itself in Sarraj and how Sarraj incorporated it into his grammatical thinking (cf. Langhade 1983, 1985). To the extent that there was little influence, it would be interesting to know why this is so.


53

that occur at it and the relations these items contract with other items in other functions. A position has no existence independent of the elements that realize it, yet by embodying the total set of properties manifested in the diverse items that occur in it the position represents a more general and more abstract entity than any of the individual items that realize it. 4.3.2.2 Methodology As demonstrated above, Sibawayh's methodology consisted in taking an item A or a position A and determining the property of other items according to their ability to substitute for/at A. Each item, each position in Arabic grammar at one point or another was subjected to this treatment, and it is perhaps this feature more than any other that has led observers such as Carter (1973a) and Baalbaki (1979) to argue that Sibawayh was above all else a descriptivist. To what extent he was indeed one (and how much later grammarians were prescriptivists) is a question that will have to be settled outside the scope of the present treatise (cf. Ditters 1987 for some counter arguments). It is nonetheless a correct impression that Sibawayh engaged himself in defining (1) the total range of grammatical positions and (2) the set of items that occur at these positions at a time when neither point had been fully systematized. He used his substitution methodology to determine what the grammar was. In later theory, in Sarraj for instance, the substitution technique was not lost; it did, however, lose the vitality with which Sibawayh employed it. Sarraj, apart from certain stock constructions like the substitution of sentences for single items (I: 265 ff., II: 62 ff.) or inflected for uninflectable words (II: 61), does not use substitution to determine the status of grammatical items; for him the total set of positions and the items that occur at each of these positions is pre-determined. Everything centers on the concept of abstract functions (4.3.3.1), agent, object, topic, comment and so on, no items having a status except in reference to a position. It is for this reason that Sarraj finds it almost completely unnecessary to show one item substituting for another, to compare one item to another, because items need not be defined relative to each other; rather they are defined relative to the properties they contract in a given position. In the remaining chapters when I discuss the 'development' of early Arabic grammatical categories I generally take as my terminus ad quern, the final point of reference, the system of grammar as expounded by Sarraj. His grammar, implicitly or explicitly, set the standard for all later reference grammars. 4.3.2.3 Matters of degree I should emphasize that differences between Sibawayh and later grammarians are matters of degree, not of kind. Most of the positions systematized and defined by Sarraj and later grammarians were recognized either explicitly or implicitly by Sibawayh, albeit in a less consistent way. Moreover there are aspects of Sibawayh's work, for instance parts of his description of the passive discussed in 7.3.1, that show a greater importance given to individual positions than later treatments. Nor does the use of substitution suddenly cease with Sibawayh. Mubarrid, for example, effectively makes use of it in at least two places (III: 172, IV: 248) to clarify the status of uninflected items and does so in a way not utilized

54


by Sibawayh so far as I know. Nonetheless, after Sibawayh one rather gets the impression that substitution is used merely to confirm what is already known and accepted as true. If Zajjaji ('lydaah: 48) or Anbari {Asraar. 10) uses the substitutability of a word at agent or object position as a test for nominal status (cf. Owens to appear b) it is not to critically examine the division of words into three classes (noun, verb, particle), but rather to provide a handy rule of thumb for deciding whether a word is in fact a noun (for instance). Substitution validates a pre-conceived and pre-defined grammatical structure, a grammatical structure first organized in comprehensive summary form by Sarraj. It represents the consolidation and standardization of over 150 years of grammatical practice.

v NOUN COMPLEMENTATION The linguistic facts, the subject matter of the grammarians' descriptions, were to a very large extent fixed more or less permanently early on in the history of Arabic grammar. Indeed, after Sibawayh very little new data was added to the corpus of Arabic grammar (cf. 4.3, 10.5). The history of the development of Arabic theory is not so much one of theory adopting itself to new acts, as one of theory searching for as neat a classificaton as possible of fairly well-known facts. Looked at schematically, this search for the proper fit between the theoretical categories and the linguistic structures (facts) they represent, between terms and the actual items which the terms represent, can be represented as in (1). (1) Grammarian I Term A = items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Term B = items 6, 7, Grammarian II Term A = items 1, 2, 3, 4 Term B = items 5, 6, 7 In grammarian II, grammarian I's term A has lost grammatical item 5, which in grammarian II is included in term B. Comparing these two systems, one can speak either of a change in the nature of the terms, a change in the extensional classes they represent, or of a change in the classification of the grammatical items themselves. Item 5 is classified as term A by grammarian I, as term B by grammarian II. In this chapter it will be seen that a rather complicated portion of Arabic grammar, when looked at from both perspectives, yields a number of classificational variations of this type. The following terminology is applied to the data in this chapter. Classes consist of items, the actual linguistic units described in the grammar, and they are known by names or terms. Category is used ambiguously to represent either the double of a term + class (a category is a name representing a class of items) or the vaguer "linguistic unit", the value of "unit" being determined by context. The subject is noun complementation, by which I understand nouns and the complements which agree with them in case form, or those constituents which have thefonctionof such agreeing complements. Effectively this means that I deal with the concordants (Carter 1981), a class first explicitly defined by Sarraj. The expression 'nominal modification relation' is a more general one, covering any type of noun-modifier, agreeing or not. To present the data I begin by indicating how Sarraj reduced this variegated subject into a readily comprehensible unit, and then beginning with Sibawayh show how this term came to designate a coherent class.

56

NOUN COMPLEMENTATION

It can be noted that my discussion throughout this book takes as a basis of discussion the later grammatical categorization, say from Sarraj on. Thus, when I speak without qualification of the 'noun complement' or 'specifier' I mean 'noun; complement/specifier' as it came to be standardized at the endpoint of the period covered in this study.

5.1 Sarraj

Sarraj was perhaps the first (Owens 1988: n. 188) to reduce noun complements into 5 types, noting that they all had in common the fact that they "follow" (tabi'a) the noun in its inflectional form, i.e. agree with it in case form.Q 23 The designation for such items was tawaabi' "concordants" lit. "followers" (sg. taabV). This encompasses five sub-classes: "emphasizers" = tawkiyd, noun qualifiers, or "qualifier" for short = na't, pl. nu'uwt, substitute = badal or 'atf al-badal, classificatory conjunct = 'atf al-bayaan, and conjunct = 'atf or 'atf bi l-harf, each of which are further sub-classified. The following summary will serve present expository purposes. 5.1.1 Tawkiyd, emphasis Sarraj distinguishes two types of tawkiyd, that which involves the emphasis of an item by simple repetition and that involving the use of a closed set of lexical items. The former in turn is divided between that in which the repetition is the literal repetition of a word, as in (emphasis constituent in boldface) (2a)

ra'aytu zayd-an saw-I zayd-a "I saw Zayd".

zayd-an zayd-a

II: 19

and that in which the same meaning is repeated, but in a different lexical form. Here occur such examples as the repetition of a disjunctive pronoun after a bound one (2b)

qwn-ta 'anta stood-you you "You stood up". qum-tu 'anaa stood-I I "Zayd and I stood up"

11:20 wa and

zayd-un zayd-u

and emphasis by means of the word nafs "self. (2c) marar-tu bi zayd-in nafs-i-hi passed-I by zayd-i self-i "I passed by Zayd himself'.

II: 78

II: 20


57

The second class contains quantifiers such as kull, 'ajma'uwna, 'akta'a "all", kilaa "both", and 0alaa0a "three". (3)

jaa'a-niy qawm-u-ka kull-u-hum came-me people-u-your all-u-them "Your people came to me, all of them". marartu bi l-mar'at-ayni kilt-aydef-women-2/i both-2/i "I passed by the two women, both of them".

II: 21 himaa they/2

As a terminological note, I understand by 'quantifier' Sarraj's second class of tawkiyd (kull "all", etc.) as well as the word nafs "self. 5.1.2Na'Tnoun qualifier Sarraj says there are five classes of noun qualifiers, though effectively he recognizes a sixth class which includes all that does not fit into the other five. The five are as follows. 5.1.2.1 Qualifiers that describe tangible qualities (hilya). (4)

rajul-un man-u

tawiyl-un tall-u

II: 24 "A tall man"

5.1.2.2 Qualifiers of the AP (faa'il) form.1 (5)

haadaa rajul-un this man-u "This is a man standing".

qaa'im-un standing-u

II: 25

5.1.2.3 Qualifiers that neither represent tangible attributes nor have an AP form which governs another item. (6)

marartu

bi

rajul-in 'aalim-in/ man-i learned-i "I passed by a learned/kind man".

dariyf-in kind-i

5.1.2.4 Qualifiers which indicate an origin or relation. (7)

rajul-un man-u

'arabiyy-un/ Arab-u/

'ąjamiyy-un/ nabiyl-un Persian-u/ noble-u

I intend to stay clear of the rather complex sabab construction, which I believe does not need to be brought into the overall comparison (cf. Carter 1985a).

58


5.1.2.5 The qualifier duw "possessing". (8)

marartu

bi

rajul-in

i-iy possessing-i-

'ibl-in camels-i

"I passed a man with camels". It can be seen that the five classes are based on a combination of formal (classes 2, 5) and notional criteria (cf. class 1 vs. 3). In addition to these, however, Sarraj adds a section about qualifiers {sifaat) that are not pure qualifiers. These include relative clauses (II: 31), phrases that resemble possessive qualifiers (consisting of pssd + pssr), such as (9)

ra'ay-tu rajul-an xayr-an saw-I man-a better-a "I saw a man better than you". haadaa rajul-un saahib-un la-ka this man-u friend-u to-you "This is a man who is a friend to you."

min-ka than-you

II: 29

II: 29

single nouns that act as qualifiers (10)

marartu bi hayyat-in passed-I by snake-i "I passed by a snake a cubit in length".

diraa'-in cubit-i

II: 28

and finally possessive phrases consisting of pssd + pssr.2 These include (II: 28-29) 'ayyumaa rajul-in "what a man", mi9l-u-ka "like-you", 'asadun 'abuwhu "a lion for a father", 'abuw 'asaratin "father of 10". (11)

marartu

bi

rajul-in man-i "I passed a man, what a man!"

'ayy-i-maa which-i-what

rajul-in man-i

The last two classes (e.g. (10, 11)) involve more or less idiomatic expressions consisting either of a single noun (10) or pssd + pssr (11) phrase that acts as qualifier and agrees with the head noun in inflectional form in the same way other qualifiers do. Unlike other qualifiers, however, they do not exhibit concord in definiteness, gender and number. 5.1.3 Badal or 'atf al-badal, substitute The idea behind the substitute is that it can be used in place of the noun it modifies. In In my edition of Sarraj this last class is not clearly identified by chapter sub-heading. Whether this is an editorial oversight or a mistake in the original text I cannot say.


(12a)

marartu

bi

rajul-in man-i "I passed by a man, Abdullah".

59

'abd-i llaahi Abd-i

one could equally have said (12b) marartu bi 'abd-i llahi "I passed by Abdullah". Sarraj gives four classes (II: 46 ff.), that where the substitute is identical with the noun, exemplified in (12a), that where the substitute is a part of the noun (13a), that where the substitute represents something belonging to the noun, the substitute being marked by a co-referential pronoun (13b) and that where the substitute is a correction of the noun (13c). (13a) (13b) (13c)

darab-tu zayd-an ra's-a-hu hit-I zayd-a head-a-his "I hit Zayd on his head". suriqa zayd-un maal-u-hu stolen zayd-u money-u-his "Zayd was robbed of his money". marartu bi zayd-in

himaar-in donkey-i

"I passed Zayd, or rather, a donkey". He also notes examples where a variable analysis of a concordant is possible, either as substitute or emphasizer. (14)

darab-tu-hu dahr-an wa hit-I-him back-a and "I hit him on the back and stomach".

batn-an stomach-a

= substitute or emphasizer

5.1.4 'atf al-bayaan, classificatory conjunct (CC) The classificatory conjunct is a rather marginal member of the concordants, and shorter grammars, like Zajjaji's Jumal, Farisi's 'lydaah and Shirbini's commentary on the Ajurruwmiyya, leave it out altogether. Zajjaji (Batalyusi 104) was criticized for this omission, however, and conventionally it does properly belong to the tawaabť, concordants, though apparently grammarians found it difficult to define it clearly. Sarraj says that it is a concordant intended to describe the noun it modifies, rather than to substitute for the noun, which is the role of the substitute. (15)

ra'ay-tu zayd-an 'abaa saw-I zayd-a Abu-a "I saw Zayd (who is) Abu Amr".

'amr II: 45 Amr

60


Later grammarians listed the contrastive features of the classificatory conjunct more exhaustively, and in order to give a clearer picture of the status of this element, as well as to relate its development to earlier work, I think it useful to look at one of these later descriptions in more detail. Batalyusi in his critical edition of Zajjaji's Jurnal gives the following list. Substitute vs. classificatory conjunct (109) a. The substitute can designate a part of the noun (cf. 13a), while the referent of the CC must be the same as that of the noun. b. The CC modifies only a definite noun, the substitute any type of noun. c. The substitute allows the repetition of its governor before it (cf. Owens 1984: 38), something not allowed to the CC. d. The substitute can be corrective (13c) whereas the CC cannot. It should be noted that this list fails to distinguish between substitute {badal) type (12a) and the CC; here the difference resides only in the speaker's intention. As Anbari ('Asraar: 296) explains, if in (15) 'abaa 'amr is added to distinguish Zayd from other Zayd's, then 'abaa 'amr serves a distinguishing function analogous to that of a qualifier and would then be analyzed as a CC. If it merely repeats Zayd it is a substitute. Qualifier vs.CC (108) a. Qualifiers are basically derived from verbs, whereas CC's are underived nouns. b. The CC can only be definite, qualifiers either definite or indefinite. c. The qualifier occurs in the sabab relation, whereas the CC does not. d. The qualifier is a part of the noun in that together with it it creates a new referent; the CC merely repeats the referent of the noun. e. The qualifier can take the position of the noun in certain contexts (cf. §4 (11)), whereas the CC cannot. Further, however, Batalyusi recognizes the CC by a process of elimination; he notes that there are certain constructions where a certain word cannot be considered one of the four concordants (other than CC), and therefore must be a CC. For example, in

61


(16)

haadaa l-daarib-u l-rajul-i this def-hit-u def-man-i "This is the one who hit Zayd".

zayd-in zayd-i

106

zaydin cannot be substitute because this class can take the position of the noun. However, this would be structurally incorrect since (17) *haadaa l-daarib-u zayd-in is wrong because an AP marked by a definite article (= l-daaribu) can only govern an i-inf noun that is marked by the definite article. Therefore zaydin in (16) is a CC. Interestingly Batalyusi notes that the noun after a demonstrative, (18)

ra'ay-tu haadaa saw-I this "I saw this man".

1-rąjul-a def-man-a

106

should properly be interpreted as a CC, though generally grammarians designate it qualifier (na't)? Nonetheless, he does not suggest that such a re-designation of this construction is absolutely necessary. Similarly, in (19a)

yaa oh

nasr-u victory-u

nasr-an victory-a

nasr-an victory-a

nasran cannot be substitute because if it were the form would be repeated, (19b) yaa nasr-u nasr-u... Rather nasran is a CC, the a-inf deriving from the structural status of a vocative noun, which is said to be in the position of an a-inf noun, even if in certain lexically specifiable contexts the vocative noun has u-inf. (19) is relevant to the discussion in 5.8.1.3. 5.1.5 'Atf or 'atf bi l-harf, conjunct Finally, a conjunct is a word joined to another one by means of one of the conjunctions, wa "and"fa"then" Gumma "then" 'aw "or" 'immaa "or" laa "nor" bal "but rather" laakin "but" 'am "or" hattaa "until", hence the alternative designation, 'atf bi lharf, conjunction with a (conjunctive) particle.

Presumably because rajul is not a derived noun. Batalyusi's remark in fact corresponds to Mubarrid's usage (IV: 220), and might accord with Sibawayh's as well.

62


5.2 Sibawayh

A fundamental point pertaining to Sibawayh's treatment of noun complementation is that he nowhere offers a general overview of his classificatory framework. This feature, of course, is hardly unusual for him, but it is perhaps nowhere so striking as in noun complementation; aspects of his syntactic analysis of NC appear first on page 34 and re-appear at varying intervals all of the way to the end of book I, some 400 pages later, and on into book II. In the course of these discussions there sometimes emerge points that at first glance are either contradictory or fail to develop data into a coherent category. However, as Talmon points out (1981: 287), Sibawayh was in the process of defining a more precise and subtler categorization of the facts of noun complementation than that of his predecessors or contemporaries and hence it is not surprising that the system was not wholly coherent. Moreover, the overall impression is that even if the terminology was frequently imprecise, the conceptual framework was not. To begin with, any comparison must certainly start with the categories Sibawayh used to define the data that falls within the complementation system, rather than with those of the later grammarians. The syntactic terms Sibawayh called upon to represent noun complements are the following: tawkiyd "emphasis", 'atf "appositional 'atf or conjunctural 'atf' (Talmon 1981), sifa "qualifier", na't "qualifier", 'atf al-bayaan "classificatory conjunct", siraak "conjunction" and badal "substitute". In this section I will as briefly as possible summarize the items which these terms name; in addition I will consider the term taabV "following" and briefly the haal since these both bear on the problem of noun complementation. So far as possible in this section I will consider these terms only as they relate to the current discussion. I concentrate on listing the relevant categories and their members rather than analysis, which is taken up later, and I do not attempt to relate them to other usages, for example, what badal means in a phonological context. 5.2.1 Tawkiyd, emphasis 5.2.1.1 Repetition Sibawayh uses this term to describe the repetition of a word, either noun, verb or particle. (20a)

la~hu sawt-un sawt-un to-him voice-u voice-u "He has a voice, a good one".

hasan-un good-u

152.14

(20b)

fiy-haa zayd-un qaa'im-an in-it zayd-u standing-a "In it Zayd is standing (in it)".

fiy-haa in-it

238.15

63


(20c)

qad 0ubita zayd-un 'amiyr-an has confirmed zayd-u prince-a "Zayd has been confirmed prince, indeed he has"! 238.17

qad has

Oubita confirmed

(also 182.15, 191.10, 273.1, 334.3) 5.2.1.2 Lexical A closed class of words including "self and certain quantifiers are referred to with 'akkada "confirm, emphasize" or its derivatives such as tawkiyd (kull, "all",jamiy' "all", 'ajma'uwna "all", nafs "self (234.18, 265.12, 343.3, 346.2). For two reasons it would appear that tawkiyd here represents a quasi-technical term only partly representing a syntactic class. First, it is usually used in conjunction with ta'miym "generalizing" and 'atf "conjunction" (cf. 5.2.2), as when Sibawayh says that the function of the words listed above is to "add to, generalize and emphasize" (190.12, ta'tifu, ta'immu, tu'akkidu, and cf. 343.2 where "emphasize/generalize" occur in the description of nafs/'ajma'uwna). Tawkiyd has only a circumscribed role in designating a lexical class. Secondly, certain syntactic elements are described as having an emphasizing function, though Sibawayh clearly does not use tawkiyd in these cases as a class name. For instance, the copular pronoun (fast, cf. 8.2.2) is said to have an emphatic function (346.5/7/15), though the position itself is adequately identified by the term fasl, and in ra'ytuhu 'iyyaahu nafsahu "I saw him himself Sibawayh says that 'iyyaahu is a substitute (badal) added "for emphasis" (tawkiydan, 346.2). He makes very clear that 'iyyaahu is a substitute, contrasting it with nafsahu which he considers a qualifier wasf (cf. 5.2.2). Other usages of tawkiyd carry the idea of semantic emphaticness but apply to syntactic functions that do not relate to noun complementation. These include hi "by", and min "from" which can have an emphasizing function when they mark the agent position (as exemplified in 258.7, 317.11), 'inna "indeed" (245.22), the verbal noun (160.5/8/10), 'in "if (360.22), as well as others (cf. 104.8, 231.1, 269.8, 277.18, 303.3). 5.2.2 'atf Sibawayh applied the category of 'atf in the following contexts (based on Talmon, 1981). a. Nouns after demonstratives. (21a)

haadaa

'abdu llaahi

muntaliq-un

this Abdullah leaving-u "This Abdullah is leaving". haadaa daa 1-jumma this owner def-sculp "This is the owner of the sculp".

221.11, also 59.2, 263.8, 266.11,267.3) 265.11

64


b. Certain quantifiers and the word nafs "self. (21b)

marartu bi-him kull-i-him passed-I by-them all-i-them "I passed by all of them", (also 104.20, 117.22, 199.3, 345.5) marartu

bi-ka nafs-i-ka by-you self-i-your "I passed by you yourself'.

190.20

343.24

c. Words which can be interpreted as kull "all" have (by implication) the status of 'atf. In (21c)

'udxuluw l-'awwal-u wa l-'aaxir-u wa enter 1-first-u and def-last-u and wa 1-kabiyr-u and def-big-u "Let the first and last, the small and the big enter". 168.19

l-sagiyr-u def-small-u

the complements take nominative form, as 'atf to the understood subject. This sentence is interpreted as (21c)

li-yadxulu kull-u-hum enter all-u-them "All of them should enter".

d. Disjunctive pronouns. (21d)

marartu

bi-ka by-you "I passed by you"

'anta you

345.2

e. Repetition of noun. In one instance Sibawayh designates this 'atf il-bayaan (cf. 5.1.4). (2le)

yaa nasr-u nasr-an nasr-an 263.20 "O Nasr, Nasr, Nasr!" yaa zayd-u zayd-an al-tawvyl-a "O Zayd, the tall Zayd". (Talmon 1981: 282)

65


f. Personal names (cf. e.g. (15) above). (21f)

yaa 'ax-aa-naa o brother-a-our "O our brother Zayd".

zayd-an 263.8 (also 190.17) zayd-a

g. Coordinate constructions. Finally 'atf designates conjuncts in coordinate constructions, both nominal and verbal. (21g)

ruwayda-kum 'anta wa 'abd-ullaahi 104.15, careful-you/pl you and Abdullah "You and Abdullah be careful", (also 105.6, 117.20, 118.5/10,125.22)

I shall term 'atf as used in (a-f) 'modifying 'atf (what Talmon terms appositional 'atf) and that in (g) 'conjunctive 'atf. 5.2.3 sifa, noun qualifier By far the largest category among the noun complements is the sifa, which I term (noun) qualifier and the closely related category of na't, which I discuss in the next section (5.2.4). 5.2.3.1 Modifier of a noun. In its most general usage, sifa (here as verb wasafa) describes any type of noun modification; Sibawayh distinguishes three classes. Q 24 Know that an item can be described (yuwsafu) by something that is (referentially) identical to it and semantically part of it, like (a) haadaa zayd-un il-tawiylu "This is the tall Zayd". by something that is identical to it, but not part of the noun, as (b) haadaa zayd-un daahib-an "This is Zayd going". and it can be described by something that is not identical to the noun nor a part of it, like (c) haadaa dirham-un wazn-an "This is a dirham in weight". 237.2

Effectively Sibawayh has here distinguished what later would be explicitly identified as three important syntactic classes, the qualifier (sifa, = (a)), the haal (b) and the specifier ( = c, cf. 7.1). Although he elsewhere distinguishes the haal quite explicitly from the qualifier (cf. 5.3.1.2), here he brings them together within one common category whose function it is to describe (wasafa) a noun.

66


More specifically, the term sifa often identifies the first of these three categories (a), which includes a number of sub-classes. These are directly relevant to our discussion of noun complementation, and have been given a basic classification by Mosel (1974: 296-316), whose work should be consulted for further details. 5.2.3.2 Qualifier (adjective) Sifa designates simultaneously (1) a class of qualifiers (= sifa) that (2) usually occur at the syntactic position of noun modifier (= sifa). (22a)

marartu bi rajul-in passed by man-i "I passed by a kind man before".

dariyf-in kind-i

qablu before

178.12

(22a) shows the morphological class of sifa occupying the normal syntactic position of sifa, namely that of noun modifier. This morphological class is typically realized by the sifaat musabbaha, nominals often of the form fa 'iyl. That sifa designates a word class opposed to noun (ism) is shown in two ways. On the one hand the qualifier (sifa) does not normally (cf. Sibawayh 96.17 for exceptions) occupy the position of a noun, for example as agent of a verb. (22b)

*'ataa-niy came-me

baarid-un cold-u

96.6

Baaridun does not occur as a self-standing agent. On the other hand nouns, like dirham "dirham" and Hyn "clay" do not occur in the position of adjectives.4 (23)

*marartu

bi

sahiyfat-in tablet-i 195.7, also 167.20, 235.5

tiyn-in clay-i

xaatam-u-haa seal-u-its

5.2.3.3 Quantifiers and nafs This class, corresponding closely to that in 5.2.1.2, is frequently referred to as sifa, and indeed in more than one place Sibawayh states that kulluhum "all of them", jamiy'uhum "all of them", 'ajma'uwna "all", 'aammatuhum "all" 'anfusuhum "themselves" occur only as qualifiers, sifa (159.2, also 105.8, 118.4, 190.14, 343.6, 345.13, 346.3), i.e. they only occur modifying an overt noun. 5.2.3.4 Demonstratives Demonstratives serve as qualifiers to definite nouns.

A general formulation Sibawayh uses is that "you don't make (a noun like hadiyd) into a qualifier

(sifa)".


(24)

marartu

bi

zayd-in zayd-i "I passed this Zayd ". marartu bi saahib-i-ka friend-i-your "I passed this friend of yours".

haadaa this

188.14

haadaa this

188.16

67

5.2.3.5 Pronouns Disjunctive pronouns are termed qualifiers (sifa) when they occur after a bound one. (25)

marartu

bi-ka by-you "I passed by you".

'anta you

207.24, also 330.12, 334.1,342.12

5.2.3.6 Common noun In general common nouns are analyzed as qualifiers when they occur as complement to a demonstrative or after 'ayyuhaa when used vocatively. (26)

haadaa this yaa O

1-rajul-u def-man 'ayyuhaa voc

189.3 also 247.12 1-rajul-u man

264.21 "O man!" (vocative)

5.2.3.7 Kin terms Kin names, typically occurring in a possessive structure, are a sub-type of noun which occurs as qualifier complement. (27)

marartu

bi

zayd-in 'ax-iy-ka zayd-i brother-i-your "I passed by Zayd your brother".

188.12

5.2.3.8 Repeated noun In (28)

la-hu sawt-un sawt-un to-him voice-u voice-u "He has a voice, a good voice".

hasan-un good-u

152.14

sawtun is repeated "for emphasis" (tawkiydan) and is classified as a sifa (qualifier).

68


5.2.3.9 Verbs Verbs (more accurately, verbs occurring as relative clauses to an indefinite noun) can function as qualifier to indefinite nouns. (29)

haadaa rajul-un this man-u "This is a man I hit".

darab-tu-hu hit -I-him

34.12

5.2.3.10 Other types Finally there can be mentioned items functioning as qualifiers which sometimes represent generally productive syntactic patterns, such as comparative (elative) nouns of the form 'af'alu, (30)

marartu bi

rajul-in xayr-in man-i better-i "I passed a man better than you".

min-ka than-you

195.20

and which sometimes represent idiomatic collocations. (31a) (31b)

marartu bi rajul-in

'asad-in 'ab-uw-hu lion-i father-u-his "I passed a man whose father is a lion". marartu bi rajulin 'asad-un'abuwhu lion-u

197.21

This last example can be used to illustrate how on the one hand qualifier (sifa) is used as both a lexical and syntactic category, and how Sibawayh uses the conjunction of the two usages to define well-formed structures. It will also serve as an opportunity to summarize the main point of this section. A qualifier understood as syntactic category agrees in inflectional form and definiteness with the item it modifies (186.11, 186.23, 191.24). Apparent exceptions, as when for instance the perfective verb does not agree formally with the modified noun are explained through the notion of class and substitution (cf. Mosel 318 and 3.1.3 above). However, not all items can occur in qualifier position, the deciding criterion being an implicit property of 'qualifierness, sifaness'. Some items, those which are lexically designated nouns, cannot, as illustrated in (23) above. These items can occur in a modifying position to a noun, but in this case must appear in what structurally is a dependent (headless relative) clause marked by u-inf. Rather than (23), one would have (32)

marartu bi

sahiyfat-in tiyn-un tablet-i clay-u "I passed a tablet whose seal was of clay".

xaatam-u-haa seal-u-its

195.10

69


As is nearly always the case, however, when two prototypically contrastive classes are identified, there are items whose status is ambiguous. In particular, there are constructions (illustrated in (31)) which allow both alternatives. 'asad is a noun, not qualifier, and hence the expected form of (31) is (31b) with 'asad in u-inf, analogous to tiynun in (32), signalling a dependent clause, 'asad, however, can be taken metaphorically to signify strength, assuming the status of a quality and hence agreeing with the noun as any other qualifier does (i-inf in (31a)). The two analyses of 'asad I think neatly summarize Sibawayh's conceptualization of the qualifier. On the one hand lexical items are categorizable according to their inherent sifa quality; nevertheless this property manifests itself only relative to certain syntactic environments, and while items identified lexically as qualifiers always can occur at these positions, other items, lexically not so classified, can under appropriate conditions (e.g. an appropriate semantic reading) also take this position. It is noteworthy that when such items do occur at the qualifier position, Sibawayh most usually terms them qualifier, sifa, the items being identified by their syntactic function. 5.2.4 Na't qualifier As Mosel (and Troupeau) points out, na't (and its derivatives) generally is synonymous with sifa (and its derivatives), and I think that there is no need here, beyond some basic exemplification, to add to MoseFs list of corrrespondences (289).5 On the one hand the terms sifa/na't sometimes appear together describing essentially the same lexical/syntactic situation. Q 25 As for the noun marked by the definite article, it is modified by what is possessed by a noun containing a definite article because what is possessed by a definite noun effectively has the status of a definite article and is a qualifier (na't) just as what is possessed by a noun without a definite article is a qualifier (sifa) that modifies a noun without the definite article. 188.16 This rather convoluted formulation describes the following two situations. (33)

na't:

marartu bi

l-rajul-i def-man-i N with def art "I passed a man having wealth".

sifa:

marartu bi

zayd-in zayd-in N without def art "I passed Zayd your brother".

diy having-i modified by N possessed by

l-maal-i def-wealth-i N with def article

'axiy -ka brother-your modified by N without def art

Sifa is the more common term (cf. Troupeau 204/215, 625 total tokens for wsf vs. 74 (or n't).

70


The point is that the two modifying phrases, diy and 'axiy,are alternatively termed na't/sifa, though they belong structurally to the same category.6 Furthermore, both terms appear in general rules. For example, the standard formulation that an indefinite modifier modifying an indefinite noun has the status of a haal when it describes a definite noun appears with both na't (200.3) and sifa (189.17, cf. Q 24) as the term for indefinite modifier. 5.2.5 Badal substitute Badal is the substitution of one item for another. The substitute agrees in inflectional form (though not necessarily number or definiteness) with the noun. The largest number of examples pertain to the substitute of noun for noun. After Mosel's (339-344) classification, these are the following. Part-whole: the substitute can represent a part of the noun. (34a) (34b)

duriba 'abd-u llaahi dahr-u-hu hit Abdullah back-u-his "Abdullah was hit on the back and stomach". ra'aytu qawm-a-ka 'ak0ar-a-hum saw-I people-a-your most-a-them "I saw your people, most of them".

wa batn-u-hu and stomach-u-his

68.12

64.2

Clarification: In this category the substitute is added to further clarify the noun. (35a)

marartu bi

rajul-in 'abd-i llaahi man-i Abd-i llaahi "I passed a man, namely Abdullah".

192.2, also 94.7, 346.3

'Abdi llaahi would be added somewhat as an afterthought, if the speaker thought the referent of rajulin was not clear. Verbs also stand in the clarificatory relation (Mosel 341). (35b) mataa ta'tiyna tulmin bi-naa fiy diyaar-i-naa when you-come you put up at-us in house-i-our "Whenever you come to us, put up at ours in our house".

396.6

Tulmin in this example serves as a substitute that clarifies ta'tiynaa. A similar mixing of the two terms appears in Sibawayh's description of maa marartu bi rajulin kariymin bal la'iymin "I didn't pass a generous man, but rather a mean one" (184.5) where the second adjective (= 'sifa') is said to be a substitute (badal) for the first adjective kariymin, the two joined by the conjunct bal which correlates both nouns with the modified noun (= man'uwt), rajulin. Two further instances where the same phenomena are described alternatively with sifa/na't are found in 195.20/196.13 and 342.13/14.

71


Mistake or correction: a substitute is used to correct a statement. (36)

marartu bi

rajul-in himaar-in man-i donkey-i "I passed a man, or rather, a donkey".

186.11

Exception: the noun after the exception morpheme is analyzed as substitute when it repeats an overtly expressed syntactic function. (37)

maa 'ataa-niy 'ahad-un not came-me one-u "No one came to me except Zayd".

'illaa except

zayd-un Zayd-u

315.13

'Anna: the complementizer 'anna can serve as substitute for a noun. (38)

balagat-nfy qissat-u-ka 'anna-ka faa'il-un 410.10 reached-me story-u-yours that-you doing-u The information reached me that you were doing it". Here the dependent sentence 'annaka faa'ilun clarifies the content of qissa and hence is analyzed as a substitute.7 Badal is the designation of the second term of an alternative coordination ("not a but b", or "a or b"), constructions marked by bal "but rather", 'aw "or", 'am "or", laakin "but". In (39)

maa marartu bi

rajul-in la'iym-in bal kariym-in man-i mean-i but generous-i "I didn't pass a mean man but rather a generous one".

'you substituted the last qualifier (kariymin) for the first (la'iymin) and coordinated ('asrakta) them with bal, [both] agreeing with the described noun (rajulin)" (184.5). Other examples include (40)

maa marartu bi rajulin

bal but "I didn't pass a man but rather a donkey".

qad marartu bi rajulin have "I have passed a man or a woman".

'aw or

himaar-in donkey

imra'at-in woman-i

184.10,184.5

187.4

It should be noted that 'anna for Sibawayh was a noun and it is actually this that is considered the substitute with the complement sentence -ka faa'ilun being drawn into the relation by virtue of its relation to 'anna.

72


Here badal designates one term in a particular type of alternative construction; semantically it parallels the mistake (e.g. (37)) where the substitute replaces the first noun with the correct one, and indeed the examples in (39/40) appear in the chapter in which the substitute for the correction is discussed. Sibawayh takes special care to note that a substitute can be definite and the noun either definite or indefinite (chapter 105). Definite substitute with indefinite noun is illustrated in (35) and (38). Definite noun and substitute appear in (34), both indefinite in (37), and indefinite substitute with definite noun perhaps in 94.7. Finally, disjunctive pronouns can act as substitute to other pronouns. (41)

ra'ay-tu-ka saw-I-you "I saw you". fa'al-ta did-you "You did it".

'iyyaa-ka you

345.10

'anta you

One point that is clear in this data is that the substitute is relatively unconstrained as to class membership. While its relation to the noun is categorized along various fixed parameters, as outlined above, the items that actually realize this relation are quite open-ended. A part-whole relation, for instance, can be established between virtually any pair of items whose referents are so related. 5.2.6 siraak coordination Besides the term 'atf (cf. (cf. 5.2.2, (21g)) Sibawayh also used siraak for "coordination". Indeed, this term is applied to 8coordination more often than is 'atf and is represented by a large derivational set. That this represents a central term is shown not only by the number of tokens and their morphological complexity but also by such locutions for identifying coordination as baab il-siraakw il-badal "the category of coordination and (the category) of substitution" (184.10), and the coordinating particles, huruwf il-siraak (211.10), and by the use of the term in formulation of general rules, as when Sibawayh introduces his chapter 216 (342.3) as "This is the chapter about when it is allowed to coordinate (yasraka) an overt noun with a pronoun and when it is not good to do so, in the context of a governor". siraak means "coordination" for both nouns and verbs. Typically the conjuncts are joined with one of the coordinate particles (listed in 5.1.5) whose function it is to join (yusrikna) two nominals (184.14) or two verbs (397.1), the application to the two classes being roughly equal (16 for N, 14 for V). In one instance ma'a "with" is also said to have coordinative (siraak) function

Cf. Troupeau 1976: 118 for citations of srk and its derivates in Sibawayh. He glosses it with the general "être associé avec".


(42)

73

haadaa rajul-un ma'-hu rajul-un qaa'im-ayn this manwith-him man-u standing-a "Here is a man and with him is another, both of them standing".

210.4

and in one place Sibawayh speaks of the N sharing (yasraku) the i-inf form with the substitute (186.10), though generally when he speaks of agreement the relevant term is jaraa 'alaa "run along (the pattern of; rarely yalhaqu "follow, stick to" as well, 345.7)". 5.2.7 tabťa follow Finally it is relevant to see how Sibawayh used the term which came to be the most general class name for noun complementation. Tabťa "follow" and its derivatives are listed by Troupeau as occurring 78 times with grammatical application. A common meamng running throughout most of these is the idea of a relation between a primary and secondary item, the secondary following the first in some way. This can be simply (morpho-) phonological, as when the second occurrence of the complementizer is said to take the form 'inna (rather than 'anna) because it "follows" the form of the first 'inna, (43)

'ashadu 'inna-hu la-daahib-un wa 'inna-hu I swear that-he -going and that-he "I swear that he is going and that he is leaving". 422.8

muntalią-un leaving-u

It can refer to a markedness relation, as when the verbal noun is said to "follow" (taabť) the AP and occur in its place as a haar (163.6). (44a) 'amma 'aalim-an fa 'aalim-un 163.2 as for learned-a so learned-u "As for being learned, he is learned". (44b) 'amma l-'ilm-u fa 'aalimun 163.4 def-knowledge-u "As for knowledge, he is knowledgeable". The haal ('ilmu) in (44b) has the definite article and takes u-inf form, but this is allowed only for a restricted set of verbal nouns, namely those which can substitute for a qualifier haal ('aaliman in (44a)), which represents the unmarked situation. Most frequently tabťa refers to a sequential order of some sort, as in (43), though as in (44) it can be used strictly in a paradigmatic sense as well. In the great majority of cases - all but 3 or 4 of the tokens in vol II for example9 - it describes a (morpho-) phonological agreement of form (as in (43)), most often (unlike (43)) within a single word. In only two places have I found tabťa applied to a concordat's agreeing in form with its noun, once in reference to nominals (345.12, cf. Q 29 below), once to verbs (371.22).

In II: 273.4,321.21 for example it refers to class membership by analogy.

74


5.2.8 Tabular summary The material described in 5.2 can be summarized on the following chart which correlates terms with items. A "+" indicates.that the terminology is applied to the data listed on the left. For reasons given below the category of draak is omitted and tabi'a is discussed in 5.8.2.4. (45) repetition of N uantifiers + nafs

q

emonstratives pronouns personal names common nouns kin terms verbs 'af'al comparative haal tamyiyz

tawkiyd + +

'atf + + + +

sifa + +

na't

+ + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + +

badal

+ + + + +

The cases that require clarification are those where an item is cross-classified with two or more terms; quantifiers and nafs for example are called tawkiyd, 'atf and sifa (and could probably be na't as well). This situation can basically be explicated in one of three ways: the multiple classification reflects a hierarchical situation where one of the classes is included in that of another, or it reflects a contrastive grammatical status, an item's being classified in more than one way reflecting a differential structural status, or terms are in free variation, variable nomenclature having absolutely no structural significance. All three of these situations are attested in the data, and in some cases further refinements are in order, as will be seen in the next section.

5.3 Types of Relation in Sibawayh's Treatment of NC

5.3.1 Class inclusion 5.3.1.1 Complete The relation of modifying 'aţf /tawkiyd to sifa clarifies itself as one of class inclusion; if items such as kull "all" and nafs "self are referred to as sifa in places (cf. 5.2.1.2) it must be implicitly understood that they are in fact a distinct sub-class of sifa, qualifier. Sibawayh distinguishes this and other sub-classes of qualifier in a number of places. The following quotation, for example, brings out the basis on which pronouns and nafs "self distinguish themselves from other sifa. Q 26 Know that this sub-class [disjunctive pronouns like 'anta] can be a qualifier (sifa) to i-inf, a-inf and u-inf pronouns, as in (a) marartu bi-ka 'anta '1 passed you".


75

(b) 'atay-tu-ka 'anta "I came to you". (c) intalaq-ta 'anta "You left". They are, however, not qualifiers like tawiyl "tall", as in (d) marartu bi zayd-in l-tawiyl-i "I passed the tall Zayd". but rather of the class of nafs "self, as when you say, (e) marartu bi-hi nafs-i-hi "I passed by him himself. (f) 'ataa-niy huwa nafs-u-hu "He himself came to me". (g) ra'ay-tu-hu huwa nafs-a-hu "I saw him himself. Here you don't intend embellishment (tuhalliyhi) nor a kinship relation like 'axiyka "your brother". However, the grammarians (nahwiyyuwna) consider these to be qualifiers (sifa) because this construction is like that of the qualifier and qualified noun. These are nouns like tawiyl "tall" and 'axuwka "your brother" when qualifiers, in that they follow the qualified noun in their inflectional form. 345.1 Sibawayh begins by calling the disjunctive pronouns in constructions like (Q 26 a-c) (cf. e.g. (23, 25) above) qualifier, sifa, but then hastens to add that they are a different type of qualifier from tawiyl "tall" or 'axiyka"your brother", rather falling into the class of qualifiers like nafs "self. Here he criticizes the classification of these items simply as sifa, as other grammarians apparently do (cf. 5.5.1, 5.6). Sibawayh had earlier clarified the status of nafs, explaining that it is a distinctive type of qualifier of a class with kulluhum "all of them", 'ajma'uwna "all", 'akta' "all", words which are added (ma'tuwf) to the noun in order to "generalize and emphasize" (190.12, also 267.20). It is thus clear that when Sibawayh designates nafs and such nominal qualifiers he implicitly understands a particular sub-class of qualifiers, and as Talmon (1981: 285) points out, he frequently accompanies this with explicit mention of the term 'atf to identify which sub-class it belongs to. Not only the quantifiers in their designation as 'atf but also complements of demonstratives, conventionally termed qualifier (cf. 5.2.3.4 e.g. (24)), are to be taken as a different type of qualifier. In (46)

yaa o

haadaa this

l-rajul-u def-man

265.5

76


haadaa l-rajulu has the status of single noun because normally when you use a deictic element you must also specify what is being pointed out. Qualifiers like tawiyl "tall" in (47)yaa zayd-u l-tawiyl-u "O tall Zayd"! 265.6

are optional and are added only if the speaker fears that it is not clear which zayd is being spoken of. Sibawayh, however, does not make clear whether complements of demonstratives form their own sub-class of qualifiers or fall into one of the other types, though 221.11 would hint that they are a type of 'atf. There is no indication as to whether the 'atf designating a repeated noun (cf. 5.2.1.1 e.g. (20), 5.2.2 (21e)) is also a sub-class of qualifier, though I take this to be the case, and indeed the repeated noun in (21e) is given a distinctive name, 'atf albayaan. In any case, as Talmon (1981) concludes, I think it fairly clear that (modifying) 'atf (Talmon's appositional) is to be understood as a primarily lexically defined sub-class of qualifier, comprised of quantifiers, nafs "self', and disjunctive pronouns modifying bound ones. What then of the tawkiyd, which as is clear from 5.2.1.2 and 5.2.2 e.g. (21b), designates the same items as does 'atf? For the sake of continuity I discuss this here, though so far as its present classification goes it belongs more properly in Sibawayh used tawkiyd "emphasis" far less frequently than 'atf to designate a lexical sub-class, tawkiyd being used rather to characterize the function of certain items, notably, though not exclusively, those like kull, 'ajma'uwna "all" and nafs "self (190.14, 265.12,Q 27 266.12). Nonetheless, there are three places where tawkiyd, plus other descriptors like ta'miym "generalization", though not 'atf, effectively represents the sub-class of quantifiers (cf. 234.18, 343.3, 346.2). In those contexts where tawkiyd represents the sub-class of items like kull "all" 'atf could equally be used, and so the two terms, 'atf/tawkiyd may be said to be an instance of the third relation between terms, that of free variation, though of a special sort. Wherever 'atf represents "quantifier", tawkiyd can also be used; however, as the discussion in 5.2.1.2 and 5.2.2 makes clear, both tawkiyd and 'atf apply to a wider set of items than quantifiers, hence the following summary. 'Atf and tawkiyd in free variation designate quantifiers, 'atf being the more widely applied term; otherwise the two terms represent distinct items. This relation might be termed one of 'restricted free variation', a free variation restricted to one set of items, the quantifiers. 5.3.1.2 kaal In Q 24 it was seen that Sibawayh described the function haal with the verb wasaja. More frequently, however, the haal is clearly distinguished from the qualifier, and indeed the distribution of the two is conventionally described as complementary by a formulation of the following type. Q 28 Whatever serves as qualifier to an indefinite [noun] is a haal to a definite noun. (cf. also 200.3 and n. 4) 189.17

77


That is, an indefinite noun serves as qualifier to another indefinite noun, and hence agrees with it in inflectional form, but when complement to a definite noun it is a haal and hence takes a-inf. Thus mulaazimaka has a-inf in (48)

marartu bi

'abd-i llaahi

mulaazim-a-ka accompanying-a-you

200.5

"I passed Abdullah accompanying you". because it is indefinite, while 'abdillaahi, a personal name, is inherently definite. This definite/indefinite, haal/sifa distinction is further used as a general analytical tool, as when Sibawayh notes that (49)

*marartu bi zayd-in

il-qaaïm-a def-standing-a

210.17, also 232.9

is entirely unacceptable because a definite noun cannot occur as haal (cf. also 206.20). In general the haal is a well-defined category for Sibawayh which stands opposed to the qualifier.10 If its function is said to be that of describing (wasafa) a noun, in this respect indistinguishable from a qualifier, then this common categorization must exist at a very high level of generalization. I return to this in 5.3.4 and 5.4 below. 5.3.2 Distinct categories In other cases multiple classification reflects occurrence in contrastive syntactic functions. Here there are two cases to be distinguished: the contrastive syntactic function can reflect a difference in meaning (and often form) or it can simply reflect an alternative syntactic analysis without apparent meaning (or even form) difference (cf. below, this section). The relevant category here is the substitute, which is a separate category from the qualifier and one which is not considered a sub-class of qualifier. The first point is made explicitly by Sibawayh where he says that the pronouns 'iyyaaka, 'anta "you m sg" in (50a) (50b)

ra'ay-tu-ka saw-I-you fa'al-ta did-you

'iyyaa-ka -you 'anta you

345.10 "I saw you". "You did it".

are to be analyzed as substitutes of the bound pronouns -ka/-ta and are not to be taken as qualifiers. He elaborates on the difference as follows. And, implicitly, his 'tamyiyz' as well, though I will not attempt to establish this here.

78


Q 29 ...the qualifier (sifa) follows (toabi*) the noun as in (a) ra'aytu 'abd-a llaahi 'abaa zayd-in "I saw Abdullah the father of Zayd". [cf. below] but the substitute is detached, as if [in (50)] one had said (b) zayd-an ra'ay-tu "Zayd I saw", or (c) ra'aytu zayd-an "I saw Zayd". then said (d) 'iyyaahu ra'aytu "Him I saw". and similarly with the self-standing u-inf pronouns like 'anta "you" and huwa "he". 345.12 As I interpret this, Sibawayh is distinguishing qualifiers from the substitute in that the former is in some way referentially necessary, following the noun as if it were a necessary element, whereas the latter, the substitute, is introduced as an extraneous, separate item. Sibawayh illustrates this separation graphically by paraphrasing it in a separate hypothetical (i.e. grammatically suspect) sentence, (Q 29d). Further evidence that the substitute is a category parallel to qualifier comes in cases where an item can be analyzed either as one or the other. (51)

wayl-un la-hu woe-u to-him "Woe unto him greatly".

wayl-un woe

tawiyl-un long

139.13

Waylun is either a substitute (badal) or qualifier (sifa). Similarly in (52a) marartu bi

rajul-ayni muslim-in men-2/i muslim-i "I passed two men, a Muslim and a non-believer".

wa kaafir-in and unbeliever-i

182.12

muslimin wa kaafirin is either a qualifier or a substitute. In 265.11 an example is given that is analyzed either as a substitute or an 'atf, and in 182.15 either substitute or emphasis (tawkiyd). These examples show that an item, in these cases, nouns, can be either a qualifier or a substitute, a situation which contrasts with that reviewed above (5.3.1.1) with the 'atf and qualifier (sifa) where the 'atf was clearly identified as a type of qualifier (sifa), though a qualifier of a special type with properties that were


79

explicitly identified. Qualifier and substitute {badal) by contrast appear to have no common ground; a noun like waylun in (51) is either a qualifier or a substitute. As I noted at the beginning of this section the alternative analyses sometimes correlate with meaning differences, sometimes not. In (52a) the qualifier (sifa) analysis would, apparently, be used if the qualifier was needed to define the men passed by, if the referent would otherwise be unclear. The substitute reflects a meaning corresponding to the answer to an (assumed) question, "what type of men did you pass by"?, where the identity of the men itself is not in question. Yet a third form (52b)

marartu bi rajulayni

muslim-un Muslim-u

wa kaafir-un and unbeliever-u

is in fact possible, which has u-inf complements, analyzed as comment to an ellipted topic (= humaa "they-2"). This reflects a meaning appropriate to an answer to the assumed question "what are they". Humaa is not made explicit, however, because the speaker responds with the structure "appropriate to the question when you asked him" (182.14). (52) thus has three analyses (and two forms) reflecting three possible meanings. For (51), however, the two different structural analyses, as substitute or qualifier, are simply stated without further comment, as though either analysis is logically and structurally possible without reflecting meaning differences. Regardless of whether or not alternative analyses as substitute/qualifier correlate with meaning differences, if items can appear as both substitute and qualifier, then in Sibawayh's theory they can be interpreted as having a distribution in distinctive structural positions. In passing it can be noted that insofar as haal-tamyiyz-sifa describe distinct categories they too are in a contrastive relation (cf. 5.3.1.2, 5.8). 5.3.3 Free variation Looking at the situation in terms of naming extensional classes, two types of free variation can be distinguished, that where two terms refer to the same extensional class (2 terms for one set of items), and that where one term is applied to different extensional classes (two distinct sets of items, one term). Sub-varieties of these can also be identified. 5.3.3.1 Two terms, one class Three cases can be identified here. In the first, variation is free in the sense that the set of items the terms name are exactly the same. Constraints on variation are largely of a statistical nature, and hence this type can be termed "statistically determined" free variation. The best example of this pertains to the terms sifa/na't (cf. 5.2.3, 5.2.4) which designate indifferently one and the same category.

80


In 5.3.1.1 I distinguished a second type of free variation which I termed restricted free variation because two terms, like tawkiyd/'atf can be used interchangeably, but only when a certain set of items (like quantifiers) are at issue. Otherwise they designate different classes. A third type of free variation applies in the case of siraak (5.2.6) and 'atf (5.2.2). In this type all uses of the term siraak could be substituted for by 'atf under the meaning "coordination", though the reverse substitution of terms could not be made since 'atf also describes a relation of emphasis, siraak is applied only to coordination. This might be termed "inclusive" free variation, since one of the variants is completely included within that of the other. So far as I have been able to determine there are no pervasive factors determining when one or the 'other term will be used for the category of coordination. Both are used for nominal {siraak 187.10, 372.16, 'atf 118.4, 371.22) and for verbal coordination. When Sibawayh refers to the class of coordinators he frequently does not designate them with either term, using instead the more general term harf (e.g. 330.16, cf. Ap IB). In specific instances there are apparently conditions governing the use of 'atf rather than siraak. These are discussed in the next section, though they would seem to account for only a limited number of tokens.11 5.3.3.2 One term, two classes In one instance, one term is applied to seemingly distinctive syntactic phenomenon, items whose syntactic behavior is different (cf. n. 12). However, unlike the free variation discussed in (5.3.3.1) the phenomenon does not involve inclusion of one category in another, or the overlapping of extensional classes. The relevant term is the 'atf. For Sibawayh this signifies, indifferently apparently, either conjunction or a type of modification, as outlined in 5.2.2. Implicitly the two subclasses are distinguished in those places where sifa is contrasted with 'atf (cf. 5.3.1.1), and on this basis two distinct classes can be distinguished. On the other hand, Talmon notes (1981: 288) in chapters 48 and 55 that 'atf is applied to the two classes in parallel syntactic constructions. (53a)

'iyyaa-ka 'anta beware-you you "Watch out for yourself'.

nafs-u-ka self-u-your

118.1 = emphasis (modifying)

The question of which usage for coordination, 'atf or siraak, and to which data the original usage of 'atf was applied must remain matters of speculation. I think it relevant that Sibawayh's main chapter on the syntax of nominal coordination (§102, p. 185) uses siraak only and 'atf often appears where conjunction and emphatic categories are discussed together (cf. 5.3.3.2). Further, as will be noted in 5.5.2, 'atf was Farra's preferred term for coordination, which raises the possibility that Sibawayh had taken this term in the sense of coordination from other grammarians. On the other hand, it could be that having applied 'atf, originally used for coordination, to non-coordinative data, he felt that he needed an unambiguous term for coordination and siraak so far as we know is unique to Sibawayh as a categorical term.


(53b)

'iyyaaka

wa zayd-an wa l-'asad-a and zayd-a and def-lion-a "Guard yourself and Zayd from the lion". 118.5

81

= conjunctive

Both 'anta (modifying) and wa zaydan (conjunctive) have in common a distribution

directly after a pronoun, a fact that leads Talmon to speculate that it was this feature, occurrence after pronouns, that led Sibawayh to apply the same term in the two situations.12 This sort of free variation might be termed (oxymoronically) "contrastive" free variation since the extensional classes are contrastive, but the term used to name them varies freely between them. 5.3.4 Unclear categorization Finally it has to be said that in some cases the same items in identical contexts receive different terminology, without it being clear that there is any categorical distinction between them. Such a case was noted in 5.2.3.5 and 5.2.5 (e.g. (41)), (54)

fa'al-ta did-you "You did"

'anta you

The disjunctive pronoun emphasizing -ta is called both badal (345.10) and qualifier of the 'atf sub-class (345.2) without its being clear that there is a corresponding structural or meaning difference between the two categorizations. I leave the 'atf al-bayaan, classificatory conjunct, out of discussion for the moment (cf. 5.8.1.3). This is attested in only one citation (5.2.2, (21e)). What little Sibawayh has to say about it does not contradict later characterizations (Talmon 1981: 282), though there is not enough said to fit it into the present classification. 5.3.5 Summary of relations Before proceeding with a final analysis of the data, it will be convenient to graphically summarize the types of relations that have been distinguished.

12

However, Talmon is not quite correct in stating that this property is unique to the term 'atf; siraak (e.g. 342.10) also describes pro + overt noun coordination. Nor is he correct in saying that pronoun reduplication occurs uniquely in the 'atf category, as such constructions are also called substitute badal, as explained in 5.3.4.

82


(55a) Class inclusion

wsf tamyiyz

wsf2 (sifa)

haal

'atf

wsf3 (sifa)

(55b) Free variation i) sifa ~ na't "qualifier" (statistical) ii) 'atf ~ 'akkada (emphasis) (restricted) iii) 'atf ~ siraak "coordination" (inclusive) iv) 'atf - coordination or emphasis (contrastive) (55c) Contrast badal vs. sifa2 haal vs. sifa2 'atf/tawkfiyd vs. sifa3 (+(55biv) The contrastive categories are those which determine the total range of complementation categories Sibawayh used, these amounting to four: coordination = siraak/'atf, substitute = badal, qualifier = sifa/na't and modifying 'atf/emphasizer = 'atf/tawkiyd. (haal as a non-agreeing category falls outside the nominal complementation system as analyzed here). I distinguished three levels of sifa; it is first of all a cover term for haal, specifier, and qualifier (cf. 5.3.1.1, Q 24); at the same time qualifier contrasts with both of these categories (cf. 5.3.1.2) and itself includes two sub-categories, qualifier and modifying 'atf. Qualifier-modifying 'atf and haal-qualifier thus contrast at one level, but at the same time are included within the more general category of qualifier. For purposes of reference I label the different levels of qualifier 1/2/3 , though it should be borne in mind that these distinctive levels are only implicit in Sibawayh's description. I should also note that I do not consider the status of qualifier as a morphological class.


83

5.4 General Summary

Sibawayh used 7 terms, haal, sifa/na't "qualifier", badal "substitute", siraak "coordination", 'atf "coordination/modifying 'atf' and tawkiyd "emphasis" to describe nominal modification relations, and in addition implicitly distinguished the specifier (later tamyiyz) as well without actually giving it a name (cf. Q 24 above). The term sifa is of particular importance in comprehending Sibawayh's system because on the one hand it was a term of considerable generality designating all nominal relations except substitute and coordination, while on the other it was a member of a more refined descriptive system that Sibawayh was establishing. In the latter usage sifa designates a type of noun modifier that agrees with the noun in inflectional form, standing opposed to badal, substitute, and to modifying emphasizer, 'atf/tawkiyd, a category which also agrees in inflectional form with the noun. As Talmon (1981) correctly notes, Sibawayh was developing a closer subclassification of noun modification, distinguishing a class of complements that was in part lexically (e.g. quantifiers and nafs "self), in part syntactically (repetition) defined. In this exercise he was breaking with a tradition that considered any noun modifier a sifa13 as is apparent in his criticism of the "grammarians" in Q 26. Sibawayh's vacillation in terminology, sometimes 'atf, sometimes sifa, occasionally tawkiyd (cf. 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.3.1.1) for this new class speaks for the fact that he himself had not yet fully internalized the system he was building. Quantifiers could be identified according to their general function as sifa, according to a more specific function of emphasis, or could be identified according to a paradigmatic property (cf. e.g. (53)). The methodological process by which the class was identified had not yet given way to conventionalized label. Whether the fact that wasafa was applied in the general sense of "describe" (cf. Q 24) should be taken as evidence that once it was the only term for nominal modifier is an unprovable conjecture. In any case, it certainly appears that by Sibawayh's time haal and implicitly the specifier were well-established categories since Sibawayh, when he distinguishes the haal from qualifier for example (cf. Q 24) does not indicate that other grammarians had any conceptual problems in relation to this term. Of course lack of criticism can hardly be taken as proof that the terms were established in an intellectual milieu in which Sibawayh was but one protagonist; nonetheless, the readiness with which Sibawayh assigned items to the haal, substitute badal, and coordination (siraak/'atf) categories does, I think, speak for a relatively well-established syntactic vocabulary.

It is not only noun modifiers but also the fasl "separative pronoun" which "grammarians" termed sifa (cf. 8.2.2), a practice which Sibawayh equally criticized (347.13).

84


5.5 Farra'

In this section I do not propose to offer a thorough and comprehensive analysis of Farra's noun complementation system, but rather will sketch its main outlines in order to facilitate the discussion of the diachronic development of this aspect of Arabic grammatical theory. 5.5.1 Three categories Farra', unlike Sibawayh, operated with three main categories of nominal complements, qualifiers, which he generally termed na't, conjuncts, either 'atf or nasaq, and a category roughly corresponding to the substitute which he termed takriyr. The reason he has three, not four as in Sibawayh, has already been alluded to; Farra' belongs to those grammarians whom Sibawayh accuses of failing to differentiate between quantifiers and qualifiers (cf. Q 26 in 5.3.1.1 and 5.414). In six places (I: 243.1, 471.13, II: 75.15, 255.15, 364.10, III: 10.5) Farra' describes the quantifier kulluhum "all of them" as a na't (i.e. qualifier) and nowhere as an 'atf or as anything else. Further discussion of one of these citations will throw his categorization into clearer relief. The issue is on what basis l-dariyfu in (56)

'inna muhammad-an qaa'im-un indeed Muhammad-a standing-u "Indeed the kind Muhammad is standing".

l-dariyf-u def-nice-u

is u-inf (I: 471.3 ff.). Farra's solution is to account for the u-inf form as a kind of agreement between qaa'imun and l-dariyfu. What is relevant to the present exposition is his criticism of Kisa'i's explanation, which I quote at length. Q 30 Kisa'i said that the Arabs made the qualifier (l-dariyfu) agree (taabi', cf. 5.4.4) with the assumed pronoun in the predicate [i.e. ...qaa'imun huwa l-dariyfu]. This however is wrong and is in fact impossible because l-dariyfu and other such items are overt nouns, and no overt noun can be a qualifier (na't) to a pro form, unless it is like nafs "self', 'anfusuhum "themselves", 'ajma'uwna "all", and kulluhum "all of them" because these words are like a part of the preceding sentence. You don't say (a) *marartu bi 'ajma'iyna like you say This fact I think seriously compromises Carter's (1972b: 76) inference that the group Sibawayh labeled nah wiyyuwna practised "une méthodologie extremement primitive". As with Farra' and Axfash, grammarians could miss some of the subtleties of Sibawayh's approach without necessarily having a primitive methodology (cf. §3 and Talmon 1982 for further criticisms of Carter's position).

85


(b) marartubil-dariyf-i "I passed the nice one". I: 417.3 The quote is interesting first of all in illustrating how nafs and the quantifiers, Sibawayh's 'atf/tawkiydare considered qualifiers, na't; equally interesting, however, is the fact that Farra's syntactic analysis of these words is not essentially different from Sibawayh's, beyond the terminology used. Kisa'i's analysis assumes (57)

'inna

muhammad-an

qaa'im-un

(huwa) (he)

l-dariyf-u

with an assumed pronoun (huwa) being understood as the item with which l-dariyfu agrees. The assumed pronoun is not controversial - all Arabic linguists probably analyzed AP's like qaa'imun as containing covert agentive pronouns (cf. Anbari §7 p. 56). What Farra' finds incorrect is that such an analysis in this instance implies that an overt noun would modify a pronoun and this is impossible, except in the case of quantifiers. As seen above in Q 26, this is exactly one of the bases on which Sibawayh argued for the distinction between the quantifiers (sifa) on the one hand and the modifying 'atf on the other. Indeed, when Sibawayh says that the disjunctive pronoun (for example) in (58)

rďayt-tu-ka saw-I-you

'anta you

I:345.2

is not a qualifier, he more precisely says that it is not a qualifier like tawiyl "tall", a descriptive qualifier of the same class as dariyf but rather like nafs "self. When one adds that in a number of places Sibawayh observes that words like nafs (except under certain circumstances, 343.5) occur only as qualifiers (sifa, e.g. 159.2), exactly paralleling Farra's (Q 30 (a)), it becomes clear that the difference between Sibawayh and Farra' was more one of terminology than of substance. It should, however, be noted that this parallel structural analysis applies only to nafs and the quantifiers. Pronouns occurring in modifier position and repetition of nouns were not treated of a class with the quantifiers by Farra' (cf. (62) below).15 5.5.2 'atf and nasaq coordination Farra's most common term for coordination was 'atf, a somewhat surprising fact since traditionally (e.g. IY III: 74) the Kufan term for this category is nasaq, a usage less common in Farra' (15 vs. 37 for 'atf). Nevertheless both terms are equally applied to the category of coordination with no consistent difference between them. Both are applied to N + N coordination (e.g. 'atf I: 53.2, 386.11, nasaq I: 72.9, II: 273.9), both designate names of the various conjunctions, though

Farra' describes the noun in the dem + N construction as a na't in the one citation of this constituent that I have found (I:11.12, cf. 5.2.3.4).

86


nowhere is a complete list given 16 ('atf: bal I: 53.2 "indeed", wa I: 73.6 "and", fa I: 86.11 "and, so", laa I: 120.10 "not", hattaa I: 136.14 "even", 'aw I: 250.5 "or", 0umma I: 396.5 "then", laakin I: 465.3 "but"; nasaq: 'aw I: 76.6 "or", 'aw, wa, fa, Gumma II: 273.9). The passive participle of both is used to indicate the conjunct (e.g ism ma'tuwf I: 304.11, mansuwq I: 157.2) and both 'ataa and nasaqa are used as verbs to indicate the process of coordination. Generally the two terms occur in different contexts, though in two places (I: 196.8/196.13, 235.18/17) they are used together to describe the same phenomenon, for instance (I: 196) to indicate a situation where nothing intervenes between conjunct and the noun it is coordinated with. In the context of the current presentation the notable point is the consistency with which Farra' applies 'atf and nasaq only to coordination;17 for him coordination was a clearly delimited category represented by either of two terms. Within our present framework, the terms are in free variation. 5.5.3 takriyr repetition, substitution Farra' does not use the term badal, but does use takriyr in contexts where badal is equally appropriate, as Farra's editor notes in a number of places (e.g. I: 56 n. 4, 112 n. 4). The status of takriyr as a fixed grammatical term will be dealt with in more detail in 7.1.4. Here it is relevant to note that later grammarians did recognize the equivalence of takriyr = badal. Suyuti {HH II: 125), for example, reports Ibn Kaysan, whom he considered to be conversant in both Kufan and Basran practice {BWl: 17, 18) and whom Zubaydi considered as Kufan {Tabaqaat: 153), to have used the term takriyr for badal. Earlier, Nahhas notes the equivalence between takriyr and badal: "Farra' (analyzed the construction) as a takriyr, which the Basrans consider a badal..." (II: 310, also V: 263) and similarly Nahhas'contemporary Abu Bakr al-'Anbari {KMM I: 450) appears to equate takriyr with badal. However, other equivalences for takriyr were also suggested. Suyuti reports that Axfash held the Basran badal to be the same as the Kufan tabyiyn {HH II: 125), a report I cannot substantiate from Axfash's Ma'aaniy, while Nahhas elsewhere reports that "the Basran badal is the Kufan tarjama" (II: 471).19 What I will show here is that Farra' frequently used the takriyr terminology to describe a situation where one item can be interpreted in place of another, just the condition badal describes. For instance (59a)

§bi'samaa evil how

istar-aw buy-pl

bi-hi with-it

'anfusu-hum selves-

'an that

In one instance 'illaa, the exception particle, is said to be mansuwq "coordinated" to what precedes it, I: 167.14. Other terms, like 'ijtamaa (I: 335.16) are also used, but only very sporadically, and as with I: 335.16, in conjunction with 'atf/nasaq. 18 Though in his Muwaffaqiy (111) Ibn Kaysan has the term badal. Ansari (443) appears to highlight the equivalence takriyr = badal. He also mentions the equivalence of badal with tarjama and tabyiyn, without exemplifying the latter from Farra's own work, however.

87


yakfur-a irreligious-a I: 56.11 (2/90) "How evil that they bought their souls by blasphemy". 'an yakfura "repeats" the pronoun -hi, Farra' clarifying this with the paraphrase (59b)

bi'samaa

istaraw

bihi

'anfusuhum

bi

l-kafr-i def-blasphemy

where the verbal noun kafri (representing 'anyakfura) takes the place of -hi (cf. 4.1.2 e.g. (9)). Similarly, in (60a)

§sadaqa 'alayhim 'ibliys-u dann-u-hu believe on them devil thought-u-his "The devil was right in his thinking about them".

II

360.5(34/19)

dannuhu repeats 'ibliysu, as can be seen by the paraphrase (60b)

sadaqa

'alayhim

dann-u-hu thought-u-his

where dannuhu substitutes for 'ibliysu (cf. also I: 7.9). Secondly, the repetition has structural properties distinguishing it from other types of noun complements. In particular Farra' points out that the takriyr can be either definite or indefinite, and the noun the opposite, as in (61a) (61b)

§b-il-naasiyat-i with-def-forelock-i III: 279.12 indef taknyr, def N §bi-ziynat-i-n with-beauty-i-indef "with an embellishment (of) the II: 382.11 indef + def takriyr

naasiyat-i-n forelock-i (96/15) il-kawaakib-i def-Pleiades-i Pleiades" (37/6)

The takriyr can further describe a pronoun, as in (61c)

§..jaam-uw ka0iyr-un fasted-pl rnany-u "Many of them fasted".20 (5/71)

min-hum of-them

1:316.1

One interesting example concerns the analysis of

Were ka0iyrun the lone agent, the verb would have to be singular; as the sentence stands the -uw suffix counts as the agent. KaOiyrun must have another grammatical interpretation, namely takriyr.

88 (62)


'anta 'anta you you "You did it".

fa'al-ta did-you

II:45.6

where Farra' says that the second 'anta is not to be interpreted as emphasis tawkid, but rather as repetition of the first 'anta (cf. below). Such a pronoun could only be interpreted as an emphasizer if it occurs after a governed noun, as in (63)

qumta stood you "You stood up".Q 31

'anta you

What is potentially of importance here is that 'anta is specifically assigned to the category of emphasis, tawkiyd, as it was by later grammarians (cf. 5.1.1). Unfortunately this is the only such example I have found, which renders attribution of technical status to the term tawkfyd risky. While takriyr does consistently correspond to badal, it also is used to designate literal repetition of a word or words, the tawkiyd lafdi of later grammarians (5.1.1). This was just illustrated in (62) where 'anta is repeated as takriyr, or in (64)

kam nVmatin kaanat la-haa kam kam wa kam I: 177.5 how many blessing were to-her how many.... "How many blessings did she have, how how many"? where the repetition of kam is designated takriyr (cf. also I: 470.16, II: 73.3, III: 287.17). This repetition can be covert, as when Farra' contrasts laakin "but" with 'illaa "except", where 'illaa cannot have the meaning of "but rather". (65a) (65b)

*maa neg maa

qaama got up qaama

'abdu llaahi Abdullah 'abdullaahi

'illaa except walaakin but

zayd-un Zayd zayd-un

"Not Abdullah but rather Zayd got up". III: 259-8 Farra' says (65a) would be correct only if interpreted with "the repetition of the first part of the sentence (kalaam)", i.e. as (65c) maa qaama abdu llaahi maa qaama 'illaa zaydun There are other terms which Farra' applies to the substitute relation (i.e. to what by others is termed badal), the implications of which I discuss further when Farra's term tafsiyr is considered (7.1.4). The foregoing discussion thus shows that Farra' had a category distinct from na't and conjunct ('atf/nasaq) that corresponds in important respects, though not completely, to the substitute (badal) of Sibawayh and of later grammarians.

89


5.5.4 tabi'a "agree" I hope to have shown, albeit rather briefly, that Farra' operated with a set of noun complementation categories that were compatible in broad outline to Sibawayh's. Like Sibawayh, Farra' did not identify a supra-class which included these categories as sub-classes, but he did use the term tabi'a "follow" very consistently to describe a situation where one item agrees in inflectional form with another, and I will suggest below that Sarraj's use of this term as the cover term for noun complementation goes back most directly to Farra'. Excluding phonological contexts -- one sound following a similar one (e.g. II: 184.7, 310.16, 330, III: 266.1) ~ the main contexts where tabi'a "agree" are used involve coordination, modification, and the exception. Coordination is usually applied to two nominal forms (AP, qualifier, nouns, relative pronouns etc.), as for example where l-maťat-i follows the i-inf form of lrajul-i. (66)

marartu bi

l-rajul-i def-man-i "I passed the man and the woman".

wa and

l-maťat-i def-woman-i

(I: 106.3)

In a few instances it also describes agreement between verb forms (e.g. I: 235.8, II: 70.9, 341.7). Farm's language is noteworthy in one place where he discusses agreement of noun and qualifier. In (67)

§fiy yawm-in in day-i "On a stormy day"

'aasif-in storm-i

II: 73.12(14/18)

he says that "the stormy wind is made to agree (ju'ila taabi'an) with yawmin in its case form".Q 32 The phrase taabi'anflyi'raabihi is evocative of Sarraj's later summary (cf. 5.1). In the case of the exception, agreement occurs only when the sentence is negative, as in (68)

maa dahaba il-naas-u neg went people "None of the people went except Zayd". maa 'ind-iy 'ahad-un neg at-me none I have no one except your father".

'illaa except

zayd-un Zayd-u

'illaa except

'ab-uw-ka father-u-your

166.14

90


Remembering that in later theory (Sarraj I: 282) and in Sibawayh (31.14) the exception here is analyzed as a substitute {badal), this citation is noteworthy because there is no analysis in terms of takriyr. In addition, tabťa is applied to agreement between items where the grammatical status of the second term is not made altogether clear (e.g. III: 39.9, 60.11, 79.11, 216.7). In (69)

§min rabb-i-ka rabb-i l-samawaat from God-i-your God-i def-heavens "from your God, the God of the Heavens"

III:39.9(44/7)

the second rabbi follows the first in i-inf, though its grammatical status, perhaps repetition, is not made explicit. Finally, there are odd usages of takriyr, like a verb agreeing in gender with the agent (II: 341.7), or a demonstrative being co-referential with a sentence (I: 10.6) to which tabi'a is applied. Tabťa for Farra' entails not only agreement in inflectional form, but also a fixed sequential order. He makes this point clear in at least two places. Discussing the variant (70b) of (70a) (70a)

maa 'ataaniy 'ahad-un 'illaa neg came-me one-u except "No one came to me except your brother".

(70b)

*maa 'ataaniy

'ax-uw-ka II: 167.14 brother-u-your

'illaa 'ax-aa-ka 'ahad-un except brother-a-your one-u he explains that in (70a) 'axuwka follows {tabťa) 'ahadun, but that in (70b) such a form is impossible because "it is impossible (for 'axaaka) to agree with something that comes after it [i.e 'ahadun]" (cf. also III: 299.13). It is important to point out that agreement does not always mean agreement in overt inflectional form, though this is usually what tabťa relations entail. This can be illustrated in two ways. First, in certain situations the agreement may be determined by the functional analysis of the first item, where this may differ from its overt inflectional marking (cf. 3.3.1). One such discrepancy may arise where the subject is marked by the preposition min "from" (cf. 4.1.2 e.g. (5)). (71a) §maa la-kum min ilaah-in neg to-you from God-i "You have no other God except Him".

gayr-u-hu except-u-him

I:382.11

Ilaahin is considered to hold the subject position, but in i-inf form because of the governance of the preposition min. The qualifier gayruhum takes u-inf form as

91


determined by the functional status of ilaahin as subject, which normally is in u- inf, rather than by its form. Farra' proves the validity of his analysis by noting that one could take away min, in which case ilaahin would be u-inf.Q 33 (71b) maa lakum

ilaahun God

gayr-u-hu except-u

Similar situations involve the exception (III: 273.9), generic laa (I: 11.15), verbal noun (II: 324.11) and coordination of qualifiers (I: 470.9). Secondly, an item can agree with covert items. This allows Farra' to explain the u-inf form of zaydun in (72)

ja'al-tu-ka 'aalim-an made-I-you learned-a "I made you and Zayd learned".

wa and

zayd-un Zayd-u

II: 126.15

This he says is allowed because the AP has a covert pronoun ('aaliman [huwa], cf. Q 30 above) to which zaydun is implicitly coordinated. It thus emerges that tabi'a is not only a pervasive and consistently applied concept in Farra's technical vocabulary, but also one that is sensitive to the finer points of his syntactic analysis.

5.6 Axfash

Axfash uses a more limited range of descriptive categories to cover noun complementation, qualifier (sifa, never na't), coordination ('atf, never siraak) and substitute (badal, never takriyr). Tabi'a "agree" and tawkiyd "emphasis" occur, though relatively rarely. An initial index is provided in Ap IE; here I will limit myself to issues in Axfash's treatment that bear on the present discussion. The best proof that 'atf, sifa, and badal are distinctive categories, besides the prima facie evidence furnished by their frequent occurrence, is that in various analyses Axfash says that an item either can or cannot be treated as one of two different categories. In (73)

marartu bi rajul-in

mi0l-i-ka like-i-you

18.4

"I passed a man like you". mi0lika can only be a substitute (badal), Qnot qualifier (sifa) because mi0l does not occur as qualifier after a definite noun 34 (cf. also 17.3). Similarly, in 141.8 he discusses constructions that can be analyzed either as coordination ('atf) or

92


substitution {badal), and in 218.8 (cf. (74) below) what can be either qualifier (sifa) or substitute (badal). The relationship between sifa and badal is either-or, contrastive. For the most part, however, Axfash adds little of note, though this fact alone indicates that at least one aspect of grammatical analysis, Quranic exegesis, had already reached a high degree of stability by the first half of the ninth century. He does, however, provide interesting intimations about the treatment of independent pronouns and the emphasizer kull "all". In two places he calls the latter a qualifier (sifa), as in (74a) §'inna l-'amr-a kull-a-hu l-illaah-i indeed def-matter-a all-a-it to-God-i "Indeed the matter belongs to God". 218.8, also 194.7

(3/154)

In the same discussion (219.1) he notes that kullahu occurs as emphasis ('alaa l-tawkiyd), which would indicate that Sibawayh's criticisms of the 'grammarians' (cf. 5.3.1.1, Q 26) have been noted by his pupil, though not developed into any new terminological distinction. Such is not the case, however, when he analyzes (74b), a construction considered in greater detail in 8.2.2 (74b) §'allahumma kaana haadaa huwa l-haqq-a if only was this it def-truth "If only this was the truth from you"! 321.4 (8/32)

min 'ind-i-ka from at-i-you

Huwa here cannot be a qualifier modifier of haadaa because a sentence like (75a)

*ra'ay-tu

haadaa

huwa

saw-I

this

it

is impossible, Rather one would have (75b)

wajad-tu-hu huwa found-I-it him I found him". where huwa serves as qualifier (sifa) to the pronoun -hu, not to the demonstrative haadaa. In (74b) Axfash thus follows the analysis of the separative pronouns (fasl) set out by Sibawayh. Still there remains a difference. Sibawayh analyzes the disjunctive pronouns that modify a bound pronoun (hu in (75b)) as qualifiers of the sub-class atf (I: 343.2, cf. 5.2.3.5), where, as shown above (5.3.1.1) he took some care to clarify the distinctive qualities of this sub-class. So far as Axfash goes, and I have found only


93

one other relevant citation (514.4), he still uses the terminology of the linguists his master criticized. Tabi'a is not a particularly well-focused piece of terminology in Axfash. It describes co-occurrence of phonologically similar sounds (e.g. 50.8) and in three contexts, agreement of inflectional form (218.15, 255.2, 260.7). Tawkiyd otherwise appears in two places, one designating literal (246.5), one referential (382.5) repetition. Of note in a number of Axfash's descriptions is his recourse to the conventional formula 'alaa x "as an x" (x = a grammatical category) for instance nasb 'alaa l-badal "an a-inf form as a substitute" (17.3), 'alaa l-sifa "as a qualifier" (270.10), or his two word explanation for the status of gayru 'ahyaa' in (76)

§ amwaat-u gayr-u 'ahyaa' 382.5 (16/58) deaths-u rather life "deaths rather than life" as 'alaa l-tawkiyd "as an emphasizer". The use of such elliptic formulae presumes an acquaintance with a highly articulated classificatory system, the citation of any of whose parts is enough to explain the status of the items in question.

5.7 Mubarrid, Tha'lab and Others

Mubarrid identified all five sub-classes of the concordants, though he did not group them within one general class. He generally used the term na't rather than sifa for qualifier, and exclusively atf for coordination and badal for substitute, none of the three terms meriting further mention here. Two points relating to the modifying (appositional) 'atf al-bayaan and emphasis {tawkiyd) do, however. Generally Mubarrid termed a noun occurring after a demonstrative, as in (77a)

haadaa

1-rąjul-u

this

def-man

IV: 283

as a qualifier (nat, also IV: 216, 219, 322). In (77b)

yaa haadaa 1-tawiyl-a o this def-tall-a "O you tall one". however, he says that tawiyla must be analyzed as a classificatory conjunct, 'atf albayaan. Here his point is that since tawiyla is lexically a qualifier whose position is normally that of a noun modifier, it must agree in u-inf form with this noun.

94 (77c)


yaa haadaa l-rajul-u o this def-man-u "O you tall man".

l-tawiyl-u def-tall-u

If the qualifier should take the place of the noun it would normally remain in u-inf form, but some Arabs also use it in the a-inf form, as in (77b), and here it cannot be analyzed as a qualifier {na't) since that category would require u-inf. This is the first example where 'atf al-bayaan is mentioned outside of Sibawayh's example (263.20, (21e) above, cf. Mubarrid IV: 209). Here one sees a basis for Batalyusi's remark (cf. 5.1.4) that a noun after a demonstrative is a 'atf al-bayaan, CC, rather than a qualifier, though Batalyusťs analysis is considerably more general than Mubarrid's, who refers to the nominal after the demonstrative as 'atf al-bayaan only in the context cited. More importantly we find in Mubarrid the quantifiers, nafs "self and disjunctive pronouns in modifying position being referred to as emphasizers, tawkiyd, and this often in the same contexts where Sibawayh termed them 'atf (cf. 5.2.2, 5.3.1.1, 5.3.3.2 e.g. (53)). Thus in, (78)

ruwayda-ka 'anta wa 'abd-u llaahi go slow-you you and Abdullah "Take it easy, you and Abdullah"!

III: 210

an example identical with Sibawayh 104.15, it is not allowed to delete the emphasizer (tawkiyd) pronoun 'anta. Mubarrid still vacillates between the new designation, tawkiyd, and the older "qualifier" {na't, cf. 5.3.1.1), later in the same place designating nafs "self first as na't, then as tawkiyd (III: 210.13 Q 35 ). On the whole though it appears that the category of emphasizer, tawkiyd, including quantifiers like kull, 'ajma'uwna "all", nafs "self, and disjunctive pronouns occurring after bound ones, is beginning to emerge with some terminological consistency. Tha'lab provides far too little data to allow formulation of any comprehensive model of noun complementation. It is, however, clear that he operates within a framework compatible with that of his contemporaries Mubarrid and Ibn Kaysan, distinguishing qualifiers, coordination, substitution and emphasis as separate categories, and indeed he may have contributed to its development. The qualifier for Tha'lab is only na't (e.g. 44, 388, 556, 585, 586), coordination usually nasaq (146, 324) but once also 'atf (382) and once he uses taabi' in the sense of "agree" (44). Most interesting, however, is his distinguishing the substitute badal from tawkiyd emphasis. Contrasting (79a) (79b)

darab-tu-ka hit-I-you "I hit you". darabtuka "I hit you".

'iyyaa-ka obj-you 'anta you


95

he says that the Basrans regard 'iyyaa-ka, consisting of base + object suffix, as a substitute, badal, and the disjunctive pronoun 'anta as an emphasizer, tawkiyd, which, however, cannot be correct Q 36 because the substitute can take the position of something, and this ['iyyaaka] does not take the place [of the verb suffix -ka] because it cannot take its position. 557 Rather, both are to be regarded as emphasizers. The polemical tone of his criticism raises the suspicion that it was only in the late 3 rd /9 th century that a clearly defined distinction between substitute and emphasizer was established, and that Tha'lab wants to make sure that the distinction is put on a firm basis. In passing it can be noted that after Sarraj at least one linguist continued the older tradition of not recognizing the concordants as a class, while at the same time accounting for the data with a subtler classification of the nat The Andalusian linguist Zubaydi (d. 988) does not define a class of concordants, tawaabť, discussing instead the badal (88-89) in one place and in another the conjunct ('atf), na't, qualifier, and na't il-'ihaata and na't il-taxsiys, the latter two equivalent to the emphasis of Sarraj (cf. Owens 1984b: 64). Sibawayh's criticisms (cf. 5.3.1.1) are accommodated while the na't terminology is maintained (cf. 5.5.1).

5.8 The Class of Noun Complementizers

In this final section I will discuss three issues: refinement of terminology, the question of why certain terms and not others came to be used, and the final distribution of linguistic items among the sub-classes of noun complementizers. 5.8.1 Refinement of terminology As seen in 5.1, Sarraj has an unambiguous set of five sub-classes which make up the general class of concordants, tawaabť in his terminology. Graphically the development leading to Sarraj's categorization (hence assuming his assignment of items to classes) can be summarized as follows. I include a listing for later grammarians' (in this context, later than Sarraj) which I will explain presently, x/y means x or y.

96


Earlier—>

Later

(80) Coordination Sib siraak/'atf Far Ax Mub Sar later

'atf/nasaq 'atf 'atf 'atf 'atf or nasaq depending on writer

(81) Qualifier Sib na't/sifa Far Ax Mub Sar Later

(82) Sib Far

na't/(sifa) sifa na't

(mostly) na't na't, sifa (or wasf)

Emphasis sifa/'atf/tawkiyd na't sifa

Ax

Mub Sar Later (83) Substitute Sib føifø/ Far Ax Mub Sar Later

tawkiyd/sifa tawkiyd tawkiyd

takriyr

(84) Classificatory conjunct Sib 'atf al-bayaan/sifa Far Ax Mub Sar Later

badal badal badal badal

'atf al-bayaan 'atf al-bayaan 'atf al-bayaan


97

(85) Agree, concord Sib -, tabi'a not applied to single phenomenon Far tabi'a Ax occasionally tabVa Mub fairly consistently tabi'a Sar tabi'a Later tabi'a In all cases the development moves in the direction of what can be termed the 'one lexical class (or sub-class)-one term principle', articulated partly by Sibawayh and Farra' but fully by Sarraj and later grammarians. This is achieved by limiting variation in two directions. In Sibawayh different terms like sifa, 'atf or tawkiyd could characterize the same set of items, like hull "all" and the quantifiers, or 'atf, şiraak or nasaq could be used to describe conjunction; at the same time different (i.e. according to later theory) classes could fall under one terminological rubric, kull and kabiyr "big" for example both being termed sifa. By Sarraj's day one of the possible (earlier) appelations of a term was settled upon, tawkiyd for the class of quantifiers for instance and 'atf favored for coordination. Particularly important here is the restriction of the term sifa (or na't) to a single set of items, the qualifiers. Concomitantly distinctive internal properties of the classes were distinguished and the sub-classes so determined given separate names; kull, for example, no longer is known as a sifa. Further general points relating to this development will be taken up at the beginning of the next chapter and in the final chapter. For now the following clarificatory observations are in order. 5.8.1.1 Tha'lab is not included on the table because of the paucity of detailed data. As seen in 5.7, however, he tends to fall among the later grammarians in that he distinguishes clearly between the various grammatical categories, for example badal and tawkiyd. He does, however, maintain Farra's term nasaq for coordination. 5.8.1.2 After. Sarraj alternations between na't ~ sifa and 'atf ~ nasaq continued to occur, though between different writers rather than in individual linguists. Jurjani (Jumah 32) and Zamaxshari for example use sifa and 'atf, Zajjaji (Jumah 14, 17) na't and 'atf, Ibn Hisham na't and for coordination 'atf al-nasaq, managing to combine the two terms in one; Sarraj's contemporary Ibn Kaysan has na't and nasaq. In general 'atf is the most common designation for coordination, while na't and sifa (or also wasf) are both commonly used by later writers. 5.8.1.3 The 'atf al-bayaan was mentioned among the earlier writers only by Sibawayh so far as I have found, in his example (cf. (21e)) (86a) yaa nasr-a nasr-an nasr-an "O Nasr, Nasr, Nasr"! While this example is sometimes repeated by later writers (Mub IV 209 and cf. discussion in 5.7), the category came typically to designate another type of example, as exemplified in (86b)

yaa zayd-an 'ab-aa 'amrin Sarraj II: 45 o Zayd Abu-a Amr "O Zayd (who is) Abu Amr/the father of Amr"!

98


Sarraj explains this as follows. Q 37 The difference between the CC ('atf al-bayaan) and the substitute {badal) is that the CC has the status of a qualifier (nďt), whereas the substitute can be placed in the position of the noun. II:46 That is, the CC acts like a qualifier in that it helps delimit the referent of the noun, whereas the substitute is parenthetical, having equivalent information to what the noun has. What is interesting here is that this distinction goes back to one made by Sibawayh, though not in a context where he mentions the CC by name. The relevant example in Sibawayh was mentioned already in Q 29, 5.3.2. (87)

ra'aytu 'abd-a llaahi abaazayd-in I:345.12 "I saw Abdullah (who is) Abu Zayd/the father of Zayd". 'Abaa zaydin is not a substitute (badal) (though presumably it could be one) but rather has the function of a qualifier. The parallel with Sarraj is unmistakable; the example itself is nearly the same, and the contrast with the substitute explicitly made. Important here is the point that while the term 'atf al-bayaan goes back to Sibawayh, the prototypical exemplary type for the later grammarians was not called such by Sibawayh, although it was implicitly distinguished by him. This indicates that at times at least the later grammarians elaborated on the content of Sibawayh's ideas, not merely on their form. 5.8.1.3 At this point is is appropriate to interpolate a remark about the fate of various terms that did not make it into Sarraj's and later grammarians' official lexicon of grammatical categories, terms like Sibawayh's siraak. One not infrequently finds such terms re-employed as part of the definition either of the chosen term, or one of the sub-classes it represents. Sarraj, for example, defines the conjunct wa "and" as "the sharing ('işraak) of the second term with what affects [i.e., governs] the first" (II: 55). Similarly Farisi: Q 38 The description of the conjunction particle is that it joins (yasruku) a (conjunct) noun or verb in the same inflectional form as what comes before it. Iydaah: 937 Ibn Kaysan, who used nasaq for coordination, defines conjuncts as "turned (yu'tafu) to what is before them by five [coordinating] particles" (111). Jurjani begins his characterization of the substitute as follows, "know that the substitute (badal) has the governance status of the word (takriyr il-aamil) that precedes it" (Muqt: 929), using Farra's term takriyr in a slightly different sense (repetition of governor rather than repetition of the word itself). To take an example from a syntactic construction discussed in 7.1 below, Sarraj describes the function of the specifier (tamyiyz) 'ab-an "as father"


(88)

99

zayd-un 'afdal-u min-ka 'ab-an

"Zayd is better than you as a father". as "explanatory" (mufassiran, I: 225, also I: 54), using Farra's term for the construction in his characterization (cf. also Rummani 39, al-tamyiyz: tubayyin alnakra al-mufassira li-l-mubhim). Yet in other cases one term is simply used as an alternative, often stylistic. Sarraj in his discussion of the 'atf bi l-harf (chapter heading II: 55) notes at one point that if two conjuncts (= huruwf al-'atf) co-occur with each other, one of them must lose its status as conjunct (= harf al-nasaq, II: 59, also 77). It thus not infrequently happens that alternative terms do not disappear but rather are incorporated via the back door of the definitions and characterizations of the categories themselves. 5.8.2 Which terms survive? A relevant question that arises in the context of variable terminology is why one term rather than another ultimately survived as the designator of a major category or sub-category. An answer to such a question must be approximate at best, though the following considerations are relevant. 5.8.2.1 Coordination, 'atf 'Atf was a very widespread term from the earliest era, occurring in the sense of coordination in Sibawayh, Farra' and Axfash. It is thus hardly surprising that it should 'survive' (cf. previous section, point (3)) at the expense of Sibawayh's şiraak. Less clear is why Farra's nasaq should also crop up occasionally in later literature, though it can be said that a root meaning of "string together" is more transparent than one relating to "inclining, bending". However, siraak would seem to be an equally good term, though it did not survive as a class name.21 5.8.2.2 Tawkiyd emphasis The development of tawkiyd to the status of class term is a little bit surprising since in none of the earliest writers is it clearly a class designator, though all of them use it at least once, roughly in the sense it acquired in Sarraj (cf. 5.5.3, e.g. (63), 5.6 e.g. (87)), Sibawayh having recourse to it in this sense three times (cf. 5.3.1). Even Mubarrid, as seen in 5.7, is not altogether consistent in his distinction between qualifier, na't, and emphasis, tawkiyd. On the other hand, if Sibawayh's criticisms of the too general use of sifa were to be accepted (5.3.1.1) clearly some term was needed for the quantifiers and his use of 'atf, confounded as it was with the coordinative function, provided no way out. In the end a term transparently deriving from the function performed by the class was used.

Points too speculative for anything but a footnote: three variants for one category was one too many, so one had to fall out; if more than one term for coordination existed, and if later grammarians wanted to relate this to the Kufan/Basran division, then nasaq would have to be the Kufan (since Sibawayh never used it) and 'atf was chosen as the Basran, given its wide use.

100


It is worthy of note that the emphasizers (tawkiyd) were never termed 'atf altawkiyd. 'Atf was a general term to designate items agreeing in case form, as seen in Sibawayh (5.2.2). Sarraj in fact used it in three of his sub-categories of concordants, 'atf bi l-harf, coordination, 'atf al-badal, and 'atf al-bayaan. The designation of the substitute in this way is idiosyncratic, though 'atf continued to be employed in the coordinative and modifying categories.22 It is ironical to note that Sibawayh's original argumentation for establishing the emphasizers as a distinctive sub-class included them among the 'atf. 5.8.2.3 Badal There were but two alternatives for substitute, badal and takriyr, and here, as elsewhere, the 'Basran' term (cf. 8.1) and the term more widespread among the three earliest grammarians became the standard one. It may be that because badal (in Sibawayh and Axfash) was a more precise term than takriyr in Farra' (cf. 7.1.4) it would have been favored, though precision alone hardly guaranteed survival of a term (cf. e.g. Farra's term sarf, I: 33.17, cf. 8.1 e.g. (1), and to some degree Sibawayh's siraak) nor imprecision the demise of one (cf. tawkiyd in Sibawayh). 5.8.2.4 Tabi'a As seen in 5.5.4, Farra' hit upon the felicitous sense of tabi'a, "agree in inflectional form", that Sarraj generalized to his five sub-classes (cf. 5.1). The relevant question here is why tabi'a, a term that till Sarraj had no categorical status, rather than sifa came to designate the class of noun complementizers. Sifa, as seen in 5.2.3 and 5.3.1, was a term of considerable generality, Sibawayh in fact using this term in some contexts to oppose the agreeing noun complements to the nonagreeing haal (cf. 5.3.1.2 Q 24). At the same time, however, sifa (or na't) was specifically opposed to the agreeing categories, coordination and substitution (5.3.1.1, 5.3.2, 5.6), while Sibawayh went to considerable pains to exclude nafs "self and certain quantifiers from its terms of reference. Against this background it would have certainly been difficult to re-generalize the term to include sub-classes it otherwise stood in opposition to. No less important would have been the fact that sifa (or na't) doubled as the name of a lexical class whose function it usually was to modify nouns (5.2.3) and from which, as seen in e.g. (22, 23, 32), certain lexical items, nouns, were excluded by Sibawayh. As such sifa represents a very specific class. 5.8.3 Classification and re-classification of items 5.8.3.1 'Atf Sibawayh included two distinctive classes of items among the 'atf, conjuncts and what generally later became known as emphasizers. All grammarians used 'atf in the former sense; the use of 'atf for emphasizers was limited to Sibawayh, though The term 'atf by itself meant coordination; this could optionally be supplemented by modifiers like bi harfin or nasaq; the modifying category, CC, always required the qualification bayaan. A term derived from the tb' root which continues the morpho-phonological sense of "agree" is 'itbaa' (Suyuti AN I: 29-35).


101

as seen in 5.5.1 (Q 30) the class of items which Sibawayh's 'atf distinguished was recognized as special even when Farra' termed them sifa. Here, perhaps more clearly than with any other set of items, can be seen the acquisition of fixed terms by discrete sub-classes, which can be represented on the following chart, using Sibawayh, Farra' and Sarraj. (89)

Sibawayh Term

Farra'

Sarraj

Lexical class of item Quantifier Conjunct Qualifier

'atf + +

sifa + +

tawk +

na't + (-) +

'atf/nas

'atf

+

+

tawk sifa + +

In Sarraj each lexical class has a unique term, and each term represents a single lexical class; going back a step, in Farra' the same applies to conjuncts/'atf ~ nasaq, but qualifier and quantifier are both called na't, though with the qualification noted in Q 30, hence the "-" in brackets. Two sets of items share one term. Finally, in Sibawayh conjuncts and qualifiers have a distinctive names (allowing for the sifa/na't and siraak/'atf free variation!), but each shares their name with the quantifier (the modifying 'atf). Two classes of items (quantifier/conjunct) share one term ('atf), and one class of items (quantifiers) has two alternative terms ('atf/sifa) Greater adherence to the one lexical class, one term principle correlates directly with chronological progression (towards the present). 5.8.3.2 Na't/sifa Allowing for the excision of the tawkiyd (cf. 5.3.1) and refinement of the 'atf albayaan (5.8.1 e.g. (87)), the qualifier class contained the same items in Sibawayh as in Sarraj. Worthy of note, however, is Sarraj's manner of presentation. As seen in 5.1.2 he explicitly distinguished five sub-classes, all of them easily and neatly identifiable by formal and/or notional criteria, and all representing a fairly productive set of items that serve a qualifier function. His descriptive class (hilya), for example, is semantically focused, having the idea of describing a physical quality (length, height, etc.) and is limited to a few morpho-phonological forms, fa'iyl, faa'il fa'al, 'af'al. On the other hand, after having outlined these five easily-classifiable sub-sets, he proceeds to spend the next six pages (II: 27-33) and much of II: 33-45 as well discussing more or less idiosyncratic qualifier constructions. He thus does not ignore these more difficult constructions, but at the same time he relegates their discussion to a status secondary to that of his five main classes. This reverses the situation in Sibawayh, where a simple discussion of the qualifier is hardly to be found. For page after page (particularly I: 193-211) he discusses constructions like those in (9-11) above, constructions often representing a very small or even unique lexical class membership (see Mosel's summary, chapter 10).

102


This shift reflects realities rooted perhaps more in the changing nature of Classical Arabic than in the predilections of the grammarians codifying the language. By Sarraj's time the classical variety of Arabic had ceased to be a mother tongue. At the beginning of his grammar (I: 35) he states that he wants learners to learn Arabic as the Bedouins spoke it. The grammarians' task thus became one of teaching what was increasingly becoming a foreign variety, and to do this one strategy adopted was to reduce the major traits of the various classes to one easily recognizable form - x has five sub-classes, which are... At the same time the older, more singular constructions which obviously (given the space devoted to them) were for Sibawayh of greatest interest became less important simply because they acquired the status of fixed, frozen expressions. So long as linguists were dealing with a living language, as Sibawayh was, such expressions were of interest and importance because they would have represented a challenge to any grammarian who wanted to formulate a comprehensive grammar of Arabic. Once such new expressions were no longer allowed into the basic data (Beck 1946), expressions like marartu bi rajulin sawaa'u 'alayhi l-xayr-u wa l-sarr-u "I passed a man who appeared equally good and bad" (196.17) and other such oddments were conveniently consigned to appendices in the detailed grammatical works and left out altogether from the shorter treatises (e.g. Sarraj's Muwjaz, Zajjaji's Jumal, Jurjani's Jumal).24 5.8.3.4 Badal The substitute also goes back to Sibawayh, except that the repeated nouns which Farra' designated as takriyr (5.5.3 e.g. (62)) became subsumed under the tawkiyd, as did repeated disjunctive pronouns (cf. 5.3.4 e.g. (46)), either because their function was felt to be that of emphasis, or because disjunctive pronouns could not grammatically in fact substitute for a bound pronoun (without changing its form to that of a bound pronoun). 5.8.4 Degree of change In general the development of the analysis of noun complementation in the ninth century resided in the clarification of a basic categorization already more or less in place by Sibawayh's time. This consisted of three general categories: qualifier, coordination and substitution (or repetition), a system that forms the basis of Sibawayh's, Farra's and Axfash's work. As the century progresses one discerns a more precise use of terms, as evidenced by the use of one term for one class and more precise assignment of items to terms. This is effected by making explicit distinctions implicit in the earlier grammarians, as with the delimitation of the tawkiyd class, by resolving potentially contradictory points, as for example in Sibawayh's characterization of disjunctive pronoun modifiers as both substitute and 'atf (5.3.4) and the formalization of distinctions only hinted at in Sibawayh (5.8.1.1). The process of re-categorization and sub-categorization culminated in Sarraj's realization that the entire set of linguistic items could be handily characterized by the notion of tabi'a, agreement in inflectional form.

The thirteenth century grammarian Ibn 'USfur has a formulaic way of dispensing with the troubling idiomatic leftovers, stating that "they consist of what is memorized and what cannot be built upon analogically" (I: 336, also 339).

103

VI SIBAWAYH AND FARRA' VS. LATER GRAMMARIANS

The data presented in the previous chapter reveals a number of patterns relevant to a typological framework for understanding the evolution or Arabic theory. Sibawayh, for example, is seen laying the foundation for, and Mubarrid and Sarraj explicitly recognizing the class of emphasizers (cf. 5.3.1), a category which, so far as any firm data allows us to conclude, the intervening grammarians Farra' and Axfash largely ignored. On the other hand, the term tabi'a and its defining characteristic, agreement in inflectional form, explicitly recognized by Sarraj, was seen to go back most directly to Farra', not Sibawayh (5.2.2, 5.5, 5.8.2.4). The following typology gives a basic overview of the distribution of linguistic thinking in the period under scrutiny here. (la) Sibawayh and later grammarians opposed to Farra'. (lb) Farra' and later grammarians opposed to Sibawayh. (lc) Earlier grammarians opposed to later ones. In this and the following two chapters I will illustrate this basic typology in greater detail, showing that it provides a general framework for an understanding of the development or Arabic grammatical thinking. I begin with the earlier-later dichotomy (lc).

6.1 Isnaad

'Isnaad in Sibawayh (6.10) and in later grammarians (e.g. Zajjaji Jumal: 36) designates a predicative relation betwen topic and comment, musnad (M) and musnad 'ilayhi (MI). In Sibawayh and perhaps Mubarrid (IV: 126) the musnad 'ilayhi is simply the first1 item, musnad the second, while in later theory (Sarraj2 I: 59, 62, Zajjaji Jumal: 36 ) musnad is the predicate, musnad 'ilayhi agent or topic. Zajjaji in particular expresses the equivalence between agent and topic; given this categorical identification I believe it valid to conclude that Zajjaji held agent and topic to be of the category MI; cf also Levin (1981:153,154) on Sirafťs similar views, and Goldenberg 1988 for a recent summary. I agree with Mosel, Levin and others against Goldenberg (1988: 44) that Sibawayh identifies the musnad with the first item in a predication, the topic of a nominal S or verb of a verbal one. Goldenberg is correct to point out that Sibawayh's parsing of verbal sentences does not unequivocally identify verb with musnad, and therefore Goldenberg's contention that Sibawayh identifies topic and verb by their property of requiring a predicate or agent respectively, rather than in terms of sequence (as represented in (2)), is not implausible. Unfortunately for our historical reconstruction, though as Goldenberg suggests perhaps intentionally, Sibawayh used the 'isnaad terminology very rarely, it

104 (2a)

SIBAWAYH AND F A R R A '

zaydun qaama/kabiyr-un "Zayd stood up/is big". Sib M MI Sarraj /Zajjaji M MI (2b) qaama zaydun "Zayd stood up" Sib M MI Sarraj/Zajjaji MI M The 'isnaad terminology also occurs in Farra', though it requires more detailed discussion. Before embarking on this it should be pointed out, for purposes of further discussion in appendix (IC), that the pronoun -hi in the fixed grammatical term al-musnad 'ilay-hi has no external referent because it is part of a headless relative clause, the entire clause having become the name of the grammatical category under discussion here. This is exactly analogous to the terminology for possessed and possessor: mudaaf "what is added" = possessed, almudaaf 'ilay-hi "what is added to" = possessor. In both, the pronoun is a necessary part of a headless relative clause, which can be clarified along the following lines (3)

(say'un) mudaaf/musnad 'ilay-hi (something) added/placed to/against-it "Something to which x is added", where x implicitly =mudaaf/musnad

x x

6.1.1 Posssession: musnad = pssd, musnad 'ilayhi - pssr Farra' uses 'isnaad in two ways that are distinct in one respect but similar in another. They are distinct in that 'isnaad is applied to two different types of relations, possession and predication. I will begin with possession. 'Isnaad: possessive relation In seven instances Farra' uses the notion of 'isnaad to characterize a possessive relation (I: 83.14, 119.5, 258.1, II: 203.15, 320.11, 328.16, 385.15). For

appears only three times (in a syntactic sense) in the Kitaab. It is the second mention which suggests a systematization supporting the interpretation in (2). Discussing the status of haadaa "this" in the sentence haadaa 'abdu llaahi muntaliqan This is Abdullah leaving" Sibawayh says that the topic (mubtada') is the musnad and the comment (mabniyy 'alayhi) is the musnad 'ilayhi, and that haadaa, the topic/musnad governs the comment just as an i-inf governor (jaarr) and the verb govern the items that follow them. The proportion is the following: a. topic — > comment b. verb — > agent, object c. jaarr — > i-inf form On the one hand Sibawayh's main suggestion is that a class of governors, including topic, verb and jaarr, precedes the items it governs. On the other, the governance parallel between topic and verb (a/b) would by no means run counter to the inference that they belong to a common category, that of musnad.


105

instance, discussing the form of locative nouns like duwna "without, beneath" he says, Q 39 If a noun has the meaning of a locative it is more usual for it to be possessed by something pit. to be placed against something, 'usnada 'ilaa say'in]. I: 119.5 That is, the noun duwna in its adverbial usage will generally occur possessed, as in (4)

huwa

rajul-un

duwn-aka pssd/M pssr/MI he man-u down-ayou "He is a man beneath/lower than you". Similarly (II: 320.11) he notes that a noun like 'awwal "first" frequently occurs possessed (musnad 'ilaa) by the item it represents the beginning of. (5)

'awwalu l-'imtihaan-i M MI beginning def-exam-i "the beginning of the exam" The musnad, the item that is placed, is the first noun, the possessed noun. The musnad 'ilayhi, the possessed, is the second. It is to be noted that Farra', in contradistinction to Sibawayh and most other grammarians, does not use the term musnad 'ilayhi in nominal function, but rather as a predicate, either in verbal or AP form. This terminology occurs alongside that of the more usual 'idaafa "possession, annexation, attachment" and the fact that only the latter is used in nominal function (e.g. as topic, object) suggests that even for Farra 'idaafa is the more basic term, a point underscored by the far more frequent appearance of this terminology in his work.3 In any case, it appears that there is no conceptual distinction between the two -- 'idaafa and 'isnaad equally can describe the possessive construction, a fact which likely contributed to the complete disappearance of the notion of 'isnaad in the sense of possession among later grammarians. 6.1.2 M = verb, MI = agent A second usage of 'isnaad comes much closer to the established practice, though explication of this point requires some discussion. In three instances the relation between V-ag (always in this sequence) is described in terms of 'isnaad, again used in either verbal or participial form and used only as a predicate. For example, discussing the a-inf form of batn in Against the seven tokens of snd as possession, dyf in this sense occurs at least in the following, a very cursory count: I: 2.9, 7.3, 57.5, 226.3, 326.13, 406.5, II: 33.1, 39.11, 71.13, 80.1, 159.4, 320.12, 371.1, 383.11, 408.12, 420.5, III: 41.12, 226, 245.1.

106 (6)

SIBAWAYH AND FARRA'

qad waji'-ta batn-a-ka has hurt-you stomach-a-your "You hurt in the stomach"/Your stomach hurts you". He says that Q 40 when the verb is placed ('usnada) against the man [i.e. the pronoun -ta] the a-inf form is possible [in batn] where this can be analyzed as a specifier [= tafsiyr] when the noun [batn] contains a pronoun referring to the agent [i.e. -ka "your" refers to -ta "you"]. I: 79.13 Leaving aside the grammatical point Farra' is seeking to substantiate for the moment (cf. 3.2.3 e.g. (8)), what is to note is that the verb is described as "what is put", that is, the musnad, while the agent is the item it is placed against, as represented in (7). (7)

waji'-ta M -MI The other two examples are somewhat more complicated, involving as they do a close consideration of Farra's language. For this reason I discuss them in appendix IC, noting here simply that as I understand the passages the interpretation of (7) is substantiated. 6.1.3 General remarks The preceding discussion has shown on the one hand that Farra' uses 'isnaad in a way unique among grammarians (cf. 6.1.1), but that at the same time his assignment of items to the category musnad/musnad 'ilayhi is consistent with earlier thinkers, as opposed to later ones. Like Sibawayh the M is the first item, MI the second, and this applies whether adnominal or verb-noun relations are at issue. (8)

N-N (pssd-pssr)

iymaanu -kum belief -your "your belief" verb-ag diq -tu narrow I "I got tired of/annoyed". M MI It is further noteworthy that these categories apparently had a rather marginal role in Farra's system; the adnominal usage was rendered oftener by the more familiar 'idaafa terminology and 'isnaad in the verb-agent context occurs in only three examples in the entire three volumes. In this respect too Farra' is like Sibawayh and Mubarrid, where the category of 'isnaad was not often referred to and was given little explicit elaboration. In the beginning of this section I stated that Farra's use of 'isnaad involved two distinct constructions. This perhaps is not entirely fair, though Farra's examples are too few to make but a general point. Farra' apparently understood by


107

'isnaad a rather literal process of placing one item against the other, hence his use of these terms only as predicates. For Farra' as seen in 6.1.2, the predicate-subject relation and the possessive relation involve an especially tight relation between the two items. In the possessive relation, for example, the possessed noun loses its indefinite -n. 'Isnaad for Farra' is applied to items bound particularly closely together, with one item placed immediately against the other.

6.2 The a-inf Form

In 2.2 it was seen that two categories of (i-inf) governors, nouns and prepositions, were effectively collapsed into one, prepositions alone. A similar process can be observed in the development of the a-inf (=nasb) in nominals, though the direction of development is different. Carter's (1972a) penetrating analysis of Sibawayh's treatment of accusative complements serves as a starting point for the remainder of this chapter and first section of the next. Carter shows that the expression 'isruwna dirham-an "20 dirhams" serves for Sibawayh as an explanatory model ("modus probens" in Carter's terminology) by which the structure of a whole series of constructions is explained. The model consists of the following elements, taking only those parts of Sibawayh's analysis that are necessary for the present exposition (cf. Carter 1972a: 487-89 for complete list). (9a) In the example 'isruwna dirham-an 20 dirham-a "twenty dirhams" the complement is always in the a-inf. 9b) 'Isruwna ends in -n, which is structurally equivalent to the indefinite -n tanwiyn) in nouns. A noun ending in tanwiyncannot be possessed. *maal-u-n zayd-in Instead the -n is dropped in possessive constructions. maal-u zaydin "Zayďs wealth" (9c) The -n of 'isruwna cannot be deleted; it thus serves as a formal barrier between 'isruw- and the following noun, preventing the occurrence of an i-inf complement. (9d) Under these circumstances the complement of 'isruwna takes the a-inf form. As witness to the alternation tanwiyn + a-inf vs. lack of tanwfyn + i-inf one finds that in the active participle + noun complement construction there is either tanwfyn + a-inf or lack of tanwfyn + i-inf, usually with an attendant meaning difference.

108

SlBAWAYH AND FARRA'

(9d i)

huwa daarib-u-n zayd-an he hitting-u-indef zayd-a "He is hitting Zayd". (9d ii) huwa daarib-u zayd-in hitting-u zayd-i "He has hit Zayd". Since 'işruw-na permanently has a tanwiyn-likc suffix, its complement is always a-inf form. (9e) Dirhaman is neither identical with nor included in 'isruwna. The a-inf here becomes a sign of non-identity and non-inclusion (Carter 491). (9f) The a-inf is also a redundant complement; the complement of a noun with tanwiyn is optional since a noun with tanwiyn can occur alone. This is opposed to a possessed noun (mudaaf) which (by definition) occurs with a i-inf. By extension, nouns which occur in the pattern of the tanwiyn-a-ini form construction (cf. below) are also optional. Points (9a-d) are formal ones: the complement of 'isruwna is a-inf because the -n separates 'isruw- from its complement. (9e) is a semantic feature, and (9f) has elements of both. Both structural and semantic ideas are central to Sibawayh's conception of a series of a-inf constructions. I divide them into two groups (10 and 11) for purposes of later discussion (cf. 11.6.) The S stands for the separative element (boldface), the item analogous to the -n of 'isruw-na. For reference, I identify in parentheses the names by which the constructions became known in later theory. (10 a i) (10 a ii)

(10 a in)

(10 b i)

(10 b ü)

(10 b iii)

S 'işruw -na dirham-an (tamyiyz) "20 dirhams" li-y miOl-u-hu rajul-an (tamyiyz) to-me like-u-him man-a "I have a man like him". dahaba zaydun raakib-an (haal) went zayd riding-a "Zayd went riding" (tamyiyz) kam laka dirham-an dirham-a how many to you "How many dirhams do you have"? fiyhaa zaydun qaa'im-an (haal) in it zayd standing-a "Zayd is in it standing". daar-iy xalfa daari-ka farsax-ayniI (tamyiyz) house-my behind house-your farsax-2/a -inf "My house is two parasangs behind yours".


(10 biv)

fa'al-tu daaka muxaafat-a fulaanin did-I that fearing-a so and so "I did that out of fear of so and so" (10 b v) qaama 1-qawm-u 'illaa zayd-an got up the people-u except "The people got up except Zayd". (10b vi) marar-tu bi qawm-in 'illaa zayd-an passed-I by people-i except zayd-a I didn't pass anyone except Zayd". (10 b vii) maa fiyhaa 'ahad-un 'illaa zayd-an neg in-it anyone-u except Zayd-u "No one is in it except Zayd". (11a) 'inna ? zayd-an muntaliq-un indeed zayd-a leaving-u "Indeed Zayd is leaving". (11b) huwa ? xalf-a-ka he behind-a-you "He is behind you"

109

(maf uwl lahu)

(exception) zayd (exception)

(exception)

{'inna)

(locative)

As alluded to briefly in 4.1.3, the present example constitutes one of the most important ways Sibawayh uses substitution techniques, the structural equivalence of the -n of 'isruwna with the other members of the paradigm in (10), to explain grammatical form. I have nothing important to add to Carter's (493-495) explanation of these examples, though for illustrative purposes will clarify (10 a i/iii) briefly. Sibawayh (15.21-16.7, also 222.9) says that raakiban in (10a iii) is governed m the a-mf because of the fact that it is separated from its verbal governor by the agent in the same way dirhaman is separated from its governor 'isruw- by -na. He also states that the haal is not identical with any other part of the sentence. Separation and non-identity are the key points of Sibawayh's analysis of all the examples in (10) and (11); I will call it the "separation and non-identity principle", or SNIP for short. One point is in order before preceding and this is that SNIP and dependency do not stand opposed to each other. SNIP accounts specifically for a-inf form, but it is not co-terminous with "dependency", nor does it replace it. The following observations, related to the examples in (10, 11), clarify this. Introducing a discussion of kam "how many" in (10 b i) he says "as for interrogative kam, if what follows it is governed (u'milat) [by kam]..." (250.17), the locative (11b) "is governed by what precedes it...like 'isruwna governs l-dirhaman when you say 'isruwna dirhaman" (= 10 a i, 170.18), and the haal (10 a iii) is said to be governed by a verb (15.16, also 235.16). It is thus clear that separation and governance are different concepts. Separation applies specifically to the explanation of a-inf form. Governance accounts for inflectional form in general; even if in some cases it overlaps with SNIP, it remains independent of it.

110


6.2.1 Direct object Conspicuously absent from the list of a-inf complements are the direct object complements (maf'uwl bihi), as well as a handful of minor complement types, like the accompaniment object (125.12) and maf'uwl minhu (116.3) which I will not discuss further. Though, characteristically, Sibawayh does not explicitly say so, it is most likely that object complements, which I will also call transitivity complements, were analyzed as direct verb dependents and did not fall within the explanatory system of SNIP. Evidence in support of this is the following. 6.2.1.1 Explicit mention First of all, Sibawayh nowhere explains the a-inf form of object complements as being in any way analogous to those of dirhaman in 'isruwna dirhaman. For Sibawayh, such arguments e silentio have to be taken with considerable caution, however. 6.2.1.2 Transitivity, ta'diya Secondly, Sibawayh uses a distinct language to describe object complements, almost always referring to an action that passes (or fails to) from one functional position to another one. An intransitive verb is described as "the agent whose action does not pass over to an object" (10.13), a transitive as "the agent whose action passes over to an object" (10.21), passives of transitive verbs as "an object to which the action of the agent does not pass over, nor which passes over to another object" (10.13) and the causative of a transitive verb as the change of an agent to object in a verbal structure in which an action passes over to two objects (65.6). While the notion of ta'diya invariably involves an a-inf form (Levin 1979, Bobzin 1982), a central idea in it is not separation but rather connection, some sort of movement between two nominal positions. The final two points relate to aspects of Sibawayh's explanation for SNIP. 6.2.1.3 haal When Sibawayh first introduces the haal construction he specifically contrasts it with direct object complements. Q 41 This is the chapter about an item that the verb governs in the aform, namely the haal. It describes what an action occurs in; it is not an object like "garment" in the sentence (a) kasawtu l-0awb-a "I put on the garment", and (b) kasawtu zayd-an l-0awb-a "I dressed Zayd in the garment". because "garment" is not a condition in which the action occurs, but rather is an object as in (Q 41 a). The proof of this is that it can be definite and that its meaning, its syntactic function when it occurs as a


111

second object ([as in Q 41 b], is the same as that when it occurs as a single object [Q 41 a] and the same as a passive subject, as in (c) kusiya l-0awbu "The garment was put on". 15.16 He then goes on to explain how it comes about that the haal assumes a-inf form, an explanation already summarized in 6.2.1 above. It is apparent here not only that objects are categorically distinct from the haal, with different syntactic properties such as occurring as definite or indefinite and occurring as passive subjects, but also that the explanation for their a-inf form is different.4 One caveat must be added here because in one place Sibawayh appears to include the haal within the transitivity system. Q 42 You say (a) 'a laysa haadaa zayd-an muntaliq-an "Isn't this one Zayd going out"? and muntaliqan is in the a-inf because it is a haal...and it takes the status of a second object that occurs after another object. [Q 42 a] is thus like (b) daraba 'abdu llaahi zayd-an qaa'im-an "Abdullah hit Zayd while standing up". 247.21 Qaa'iman/muntaliqan are thus compared to second objects of bi-transitive verbs. Here he is saying more than that the haal is governed by the verb - a fact not opposed to the separation principle in any case, as noted above; rather he compares it explicitly to an object function. I think one must be cautious in drawing conclusions here since this is the only passage of its type; whether Sibawayh is simply contradicting himself or whether he has some deeper unity in mind are questions I am not prepared to answer. The question may indeed be unanswerable given the data presently at our disposal. 6.2.1.4 Locative, darf A similar point emerges in Sibawayh's explanation of the locative, darf. The point of this (somewhat long) discussion will be to show that Sibawayh considered nouns to have quite different and mutually exclusive properties according to whether they fell into the transitivity system or SNIP. One has to assume that the a-inf items in the transitivity system, the objects, are determined by the direct governance of the verb only.

112

SIBAWAYH AND FARRA'

Among the object complements (those that fall within the transitivity system) are the cognate object (maf'uwl mutlaq of later grammarians) and for Sibawayh these include not only the verbal noun but time phrases as well, his idea being that verbs take as objects whatever is inherently implied in the verb (action and time). qa'ada sahr-ayni 11.15 stayed month-2/a "He stayed two months". (12b) sa-'adhabu gad-an 11.15 fut-I go tomorrow-a "I'll go tomorrow". Sibawayh, however, adds that such examples can be analyzed either as a type of object complement, or as darf, locative (11.16). (12a)

The contrast between two possible analyses is explicitly brought out in his discussion of (13)

yawm-a/-;wm'ań' sum-tu-hu day-a Friday fasted-I-it "As for Friday, I fasted (on) it". Q 43 If you want you can put [ yawm-a] in the a-inf on the understanding that it is a locative, but if you want you can also put it in the a-inf as if a verb governed it [i.e. an understood verb, (sumtu) yawm-a sumtuhu, the 'istigaal construction, cf. 8.2.3.3] because yawma can act both as a locative and non-locative noun. 33.14

The choice of analysis is apparently a free one (for the analyst), though it is only later (p. 75) that it becomes clear on what syntactic basis such a choice should exist, for so far as the a-inf form goes the relevant constituents in (12, 13) remain unaltered no matter which analysis is applied. Discussing the two alternatives of (14a) yaa saariq-a-n l-laylat-a 'ahl-a l-daar 75.11 O stealer-a-indef def-night-a people-a def-house "O you who are going to rob tonight the people of the house". (14b) = yaa saariq-a l-laylat-i 'ahla l-daar Sibawayh explains that 'ahla l-daar is object complement to the AP saariqan and that the better choice is (14a) in which il-laylat-a is a locative to an AP with the indefinite -n (tanwiyn). In Sibawayh's words, laylata is in a position of separation (mawdi' 'infisaal). (14b) is also possible, however. Q 44 If you want you can relate laylati directly to a verb on the basis of extension of function ('alaa si'at il-kalaam).


113

In this case the tanwiyn on the AP is lost and the following complement (laylati) takes i-inf form as a possessor. (14a/b) requires further clarification. First, active participles can under certain circumstances take i-inf rather than a-inf object complements (70.10 ff.). The basic case is when the meaning is past (77.7), though other situations are also recognized (72.12 and cf. Mosel 1975: 126 ff.). This contrast has already been indicated in (9d). Secondly, the locative stands outside the transitivity system, its a-inf form being accounted for under SNIP (cf. (lib)). Thirdly, in certain cases the locative can nevertheless assume a function that draws it into the transitivity system, enabling it, inter alia, to become passive agent and take part in a topic forming construction. A basic situation involves a meaning contrast (90.4 ff.). (15a)

siyra 'alay-hi l-yawm-a followed on-it today-a "It was followed for some of today/all day". (15b) siyra 'alay-hi l-yawm-u "It was followed some of the day". In (15a) l-yawma is an a-inf locative and indicates that the action occurred either in part of the day or all of the day. In (15b) l-yawmu is u-inf subject of the passive verb and the meaning indicates that the action took place during part of the day, Sibawayh paraphrasing this as an answer to (16)

'ayy-u l-'ahyaan-i siyra 'alayhi 90.13 which-u def-time gone on-it "At which time was it followed"? It should be borne in mind that there are structural consequences for an item's being classified as a locative. As seen above in the discussion of the haal (6.2.1.3, Q 41) items that are accounted for by SNIP (locative is among them) are specifically excluded from entering the passivization process. In (15b), however, /yawmu takes part in passivization, and hence could not have locative function. To better understand the precise status of l-yawmu, Sibawayh's account of passivization must be briefly outlined (cf. Saad 1979), a fuller account being given in 7.3. In Sibawayh, in contrast to virtually all later accounts, there is no promotion of object to agent in passivization. A passive verb is one, as quoted above (6.2.1.2), in which the action of the agent does not pass over to an object, and where the action of an object does not pass over to another object. To the extent that Sibawayh's account is consistent, it would thus follow (Sibawayhs terminology is not explicit here) that in (15b) l-yawmu is an object (whose action does not pass over...). This supposition is confirmed by other examples that Sibawayh gives, one of which can be quoted at length.

114

SIBAWAYHAND FARRA'

Q 45 You say (a)

siyra 'alayhi farsax-aani yawm-ayni gone on it farsax-2/u day-2/a "For 2 parasangs it was followed two days long".

because you linked (sagalta) the verb with farsaxaani...and if you want you can say (b) siyra 'alayhi farsax-ayni yawm-aani making whichever of the two that you choose u-inf, the other becoming the locative (or) if you want you make the other a-inf object ('alaa l-fi'l) by virtue of an extension of function, not as a locative, just as you say (c) yaa daarib-a l-yawm-i zayd-an "O the one who hit Zayd today". and (d) yaa saa'ir-a l-yawm-i farsax-ayni "O the one who went 2 farsax today". 93.20 Whether or not a semantic contrast is entailed in the analysis of the a-inf complement (of Q 45 a-d) as object or locative is not clear. It is clear, though, that a locative does extend its function to that of object. The structural consequence of this is that in its extended object function it can occur as i-inf complement to an AP, just as any object can (cf. 9d). Returning to the discussion at the beginning of this section, it is apparent that Sibawayh's distinguishing gadan as either locative or object, despite its formal identity in the two functions, (17) (= 12b) sa'adhabu gad-an; gadan = darf or object rests largely on the formal contrast between a/i-inf form that is found in constructions like (14). The reasoning would appear to run as follows: if darf/object are formally and categorically distinctive after an AP, which in terms of governance is a marked category relative to the verb, then when they occur as complements to a verb the categorical distinction must also be present, even though the words are formally identical as verbal complements. To summarize, the categorization of a lexical item as darf or object has significant formal, and to some extent, semantic implications. In particular, a locative whose function extends to that of object falls into the transitivity system and this permits it to be topicalized and to occur as passive subject and as i-inf possessor of the AP, something not permitted to a-inf forms which fall within the SNIP system.


115

Here it has been seen that Sibawayh treated a-inf complements under two categories of relations, those of transitivity which involve a direct relation between verb and complement, and SNIP, in which the items related to each other are in some way separated from each other. This can be represented as follows. (18a)

Transitivity

V—>Obj

b) SNIP fasl x—--> y

6.2.2 Farra' It would appear that Farra', like Sibawayh, operated with (at least) two different categories of a-inf complements, though given the necessarily fragmentary grammatical treatment available to us from his Ma'aaniy it is probably not possible to decide conclusively whether the categories were mutually exclusive. 6.2.2.1 Governance, 'iyqaa' As will be discussed further in 8.2.1, Farra' uses the notion of 'iyqaa' (with various morphological permutations) generally in the sense of "govern". This can be a verb governing an a-inf complement, a preposition governing an object, a conditional particle governing a jussive verb, ellipted verbs governing objects (II: 133.12), and so on. Specific examples and page references are given in 8.2.1. Here two examples can be adduced. He explains the verse (7/155) Q 46 (a) wa xtaara muwsaa qawm-a-hu and chose Moses people-a-his rajul-an man-a "And Moses chose from his people 70 men".

sab'iyna 70

The interpretation is 'ixtaara minhum sab'iyna rajulan "He chose from them 70 men". Once min has been deleted, it is allowed for the verb to govern the noun (qawma) directly ('ustujiyza wuquw'u l-fi'li 'alayhim) because it is taken from the expression (b) ha'ulaa'xayru l-qawmi 'These are the best of men" or (c) ..xayrun min il-qawmi "the best (from) the men" and just as (b) and (c) have the same meaning, so it is allowed to say,

116

SIBAWAYH AND FARRA'

(d) 'ixtartu-kum rajul-an "I chose a man from you". and (e) 'ixtartu min-kum rajulan I: 395.1 Similarly, in one of the few places he specifically treats the transitivity structure of a verb, he describes bi-transitive verbs as "...as if the verb governs (yaqa'u) two things" (II: 79.15), as in (19)

kasaw-tu-ka l-0awb-a "I dressed you in the garment". Governance is thus an important aspect of Farra's explanation of inflectional

form. 6.2.2.2 Separation:qat',xuruwj, haal On the other hand, Farra' also accounts for a-inflectional form in other ways. In one isolated citation (cf. also 3.6.2.4) he distinguishes between an a-inf complement governed by a verb, and one not so governed. Q 47 'a'tay-tu-ka xawf-an gave-I-you fear-a "I gave you out of fear and fright".

wa faraq-an and fright-a

You don't give someone fear and fright, but rather give because of fear, and it [the a-inf complements] is made a-inf as an interpretative item ('alaa l-tafsiyr), not by the verb. I: 17.11 In an analogous Quranic passage a tafsiyr a-inf form is said to be a-inf "not because of the governance (wuquw') of the verb" (I:17.10, cf. 3.6.2.4 for discussion). A precise categorization is impossible to determine, though the passage suggests that Farra' has two categories of a-inf complements, one directly related to the verb, the other not. Even more relevant, if only because it is better exemplified, is the construction termed qať by Farra', which corresponds generally to what is known as the haal among Basran grammarians. Explaining the excerpt (20) §(daalika l-kitaab) hudan l-il-muttaqiyna that def-book savior to-def-believers (This is the book) that is a savior to those who believe". (2/2) Farra' writes that there are two a-inf interpretations for hudan.

117


Q 48 ..As for the first, you make l-kitaaba comment (xabar) to daalika, and you make hudan a-inf because it is al-qat', a redundant modifier, because hudan is indefinite, related to a definite noun whose comment (xabar) is complete, so it is a-inf because an indefinite cannot describe (laa takuwnu daliylan) a definite. Also, if you want you can make hudan a redundant modifier (qať) from the pronoun -hi in fiyhi (laa rayba fiyhi "there is no doubt about it"), on the pattern of (a) laasakkafiyhihaadiy-an "There is no doubt about him as a guide" I: 12.2 Qať, a term explicitly identified as a Kufan one for haal by Nahhas (I: 130, cf. also Zajjaj I: 133) has, in Farra's explanation, two hallmarks of Sibawayh's account of an a-mf form: it occurs after a complete predication (cf. (9f) above), and the term itself is reminiscent of the idea of formal separation. I will return to the notion of qať in 6.2.5 below. To what extent Farra' developed a cohesive theory of a-inf complementation is a question open to further research. Here it is of significance to note that he also used the term haal (e.g. I: 193.5, 301.16, etc.) to describe what conventionally became the haal construction, albeit less frequently than qať (cf. 7.1.4), and in addition used the notion of xuruwj "separation, derivation". For example, in the excerpt (21)

§ wa haadaa kitaab-un 'anzal-naa-hu mubaarak-an and this book-u revealed-we-it blessing-a "and this is a book we sent as a blessing" I: 365.14 (6/154) the a-inf of mubaarakan, later analyzed as a haal by Nahhas (I: 593), is explained as being in a position of separation ('alaa l-xuruwf) from the -hu in 'anzalnaahu (cf. I: 347.10, II: 198.3, 261.9, III: 208.3, 225.15 for further usages of the term). It is precisely the term xuruwj that is applied in Farra's analysis of 'isruwna dirhaman "20 dirhams". The a-inf expressions in (22a) (22b) (22c)

§ mil'u l-ard-i dahab-an quantity-u land-i gold-a "a quantity of land in gold" 'indiy "isruwna dirham-an to me 20 dirham "I have 20 dirhams". laka xayru-humaa kabs-an to you best-them/2 ram-a "You have the best of the 2 so far as the rams go". I: 225.11

118

SlBAWAYH AND FARRA'

Q 49 are made a-inf because of their deriving (xuruwjan5) from the measure that has been mentioned I: 226.1

Farra' notes that one is dealing here with standard, known measures that are explained (mufassar) by the a-inf noun. I will return to these examples in 7.1.2. Of significance is the relative importance Farra' attaches to a link between ainf form and meaning. A-inf is related to a meaning of separation or derivation. This point is further in evidence in his discussion of the exception, where he contrasts (23a)

maa qaama 'ahad-un 'illaa neg got up anyone-u except "No one got up except your father".

'ab-uw-ka father-u-your

with (23b)

maa fiyhaa 'ahad-un neg in-it one-u "There is no one in it except a dog".

'illaa except

kalb-an dog-a

II: 479.11 where u-inf is sanctioned after 'illaa when the excepted item is of the same type as the group, and the a-inf (23b) is used "where the noun is distinct (munqati' "cut off') from what occurs before 'illaa". Similar discussion of the exception is found elsewhere (I: 288.2, III: 42.16, 273.5). Two salient points emerge from this discussion. First, as Carter (1973b: 296, 297) has pointed out, the notion of separation as a structurally significant explanatory notion was not idiosyncratic to Sibawayh's thinking, being found in certain ways in Farra' as well. At the same time, as seen particularly in the last two points (e.g. (22, 23)), the notion of separation was as much a semantic as a structural notion, a point that takes on added importance when it is recalled that one difference between the Basrans and Kufans was that the Basrans gave more weight to formal elements of grammar than did the Kufans (Weil 29 ff.). In fact, at no point does Farra' allude to the formal separation present in the -n of 'isruwna,

Here I translate xuruwjan as "deriving from the measure mentioned"; it is not altogether clear whether a better translation would be "separation", either from a formal perspective, i.e. separation by an intervening element, 'ardi in (20a), -na in (b) or separation from the predicative element. The terminology is not defined.

119


and his discussion of the qať relies as much on semantic ("completeness of sentence") as it does on structural criteria. 6 I will return to this theme in 8.1. 6.2.3 Axfash One of the most interesting developments in the application of the idea of separation to linguistic analysis is expressed by Axfash in his analysis of (24 =22a)

§ mil'u l-ard-i dahab-an 209.11 (7/91) "A quantity of land in gold"

I quote his commentary at length. Q 50 dahaban is in the accusative in the same way one has (a) liy miOluka rajulan "I have a man like you", that is (b) liy miOluka min il-rijaal-i "I have (someone) like you from the men". because you [first] relate (sagala) the possessive construction to the noun other than dahaban, [that is, mil'u to l-'ardi], then dahaban occurs, which is distinct from either of the other nouns [i.e. from mil'u and 'ardi), dahaban is a-inf in the same way the object is a-inf when it occurs after a verb. Such also is the interpretation of the haal construction, because if you say (c)jaa'a 'abdu llaahi raakiban "Abdullahi came riding". you relate (sagala) the verb to 'abdu llaahi, and raakib is not a qualifier (sifa) to it because the latter (raakiban) is indefinite and the former ('abdu llaahi) definite...and it is put in the a-inf form in the same way the object after the agent is [my emphasis] I: 209.12 Axfash, like Sibawayh, is operating argumentation running as follows.7

primarily

within

formal

terms,

his

Farra' does recognize the alternation between -n and the possessive complement (cf. especially III: 224.3 ff.), though in his MQ does not relate the construction specifically to 'isruwna dirhaman. Though Axfash also explains the exception in terms of xuruwj when it has the meaning of laakin "but" §. . .minhum 'ummiyyuwna laa ya'lamuwna l-kitaab 'illaa 'amaaniyya "including illiterates who do not know the Qur'aan, only wishing to" (115.3, 2/78) where 'amaaniyya is xaarijan from the meaning of 'ummiyyuwna (= laakin 'amaaniy). Xuruwj here concerns the semantic idea of non-identity.

120 (25) a) b) c)


Separating element nasb a-inf mil'u l'ardi dahab-an =? jaa'a 'abdu llaahi raakiba-an = haal ra'aa 'abdu llaahi dahab-an = object "Abdulla saw some gold". In all of these constructions the a-inf is separated from its governing element by another item, and this accounts for its a-inf form. What Axfash has done is to generalize Sibawayh's explanation of a-inf form via SNIP to include objects, bringing all a-inf forms into one category. (26)

Sibawayh: two categories of a-inf

Axfash: one category

a) a-inf by transitivity a-inf by SNIP b) a-inf by SNIP Axfash's generalization is by no means unreasonable. Although, as I suggested above (6.1.2.2), Sibawayh viewed a-inf by transitivity as a different category of a-inf form, such forms do in fact conform to his conception of SNIP: as Axfash notes, objects are (normally) separated from their verbal governor by an agent in the same way the haal is (cf. (9c, 25c), and they are referentially nonidentical with the verb (and agent) as well. 6.2.4 Mubarrid and his successors After Axfash comes a most regrettable lacuna of one generation in our sources (Jarmi, Mazini, etc.). In places Mubarrid still draws out parallels between the a-inf form and a separative element, most particularly for the tamyiyz (cf. 7.1 for further). For instance, the separative function of the indefinite -n is first noted for 'isruw-na in (27a) and then compared directly with the suffix pronoun in (27b). (27a) (27b)

'anta you

'isruw-na 20 -n 'afrahu-hum active-them

dirham-an (III: 32) dirham-a 'abd-an (III: 33) slave-a

"You are the most active of them so far as a slave goes". Following Sibawayh (cf. e.g. (10 a ii), Mubarrid notes that the suffix pronoun -hum prevents the i-inf form ('idaafa) in 'abdan just as the -na of 'isruwna prevents the i-inf form in dirhaman Nonetheless, it is only for the tamyiyz construction that Mubarrid draws a parallel between the separative function of the -n of 'isruwna and other types of constituents: 'isruwna serves as a prototypical tamyiyz form, but not as a prototype for a-inf forms in general. Instead Mubarrid has a different explanation for ainflectional forms, one which applies equally to the tamyiyz and to all other a-inf forms:


121

Q 51 Nothing is made a-inf form unless it is an object, or what resembles an object in form or meaning. IV: 299 Know that the tamyiyz is governed by the verb or what is comparable to the category of verb. HI: 32 This position, with a final amendment by Zajjaji, effectively became the standard opinion on the subject for posterity. Mubarrid does not elaborate on this at all, though it is noteworthy that his generalization is formulated in functional terms (ainf forms are objects), a theme I return to in the last chapter (11.6). Finally, Zajjaji ('lydaah: 135) turns Mubarriďs formulation on its head (as it were) saying that all a-inf complements relate either to a verbal governor, or what resembles a verb. To conclude, the development in the explanation of a-inf forms can be summmarized as follows. (28a) Sibawayh (d. 798) 2 categories of a-inf forms: a-inf by transitivity a-inf by SNIP (28b) Farra' (812) Impossible to say how many explanatory categories are used, though the notion of separation is an important concept (28c) Axfash (830) 1 category, by SNIP (28d) Mubarrid (898) 1 category, a-inf as object (28e) Zajjaji (953) 1 category, a-inf by verbal governor Axfash is of special note in this development, standing as a swing figure between Sibawayh and Mubarrid: like Sibawayh he used the separation and nonidentity principle which had effectively disappeared by Mubarriďs day, but also, like Mubarrid, he explains all a-inf forms in terms of one general category, not two. 6.2.5 The disappearance of the role of structural separation Exactly why the notion of structural separation should have lost favor among the grammarians is a question we will perhaps never answer definitively. I will address the question further in 11.6. Here it is relevant to note that the Arabic linguists of the later period were aware that such a shift had occurred. Zajjaj for example discussing the a-inf in (28 = 22a) (29) § mil'u l-aréi dahaban "a measure of land in gold" explains that it is a specifier, tamyiyz, a term first introduced by Mubarrid (cf. 7.1) and goes on to say,

122

SIBAWAYHAND FARRA'

Q 52 Sibawayh and all the Basrans say that the i-inf possessor ('ardi) separates (haala) dahaban and mil'u, preventing dahaban from being iinf form. I: 450, 451 Nonetheless, there is no intimation that Zajjaj himself held this to be a working principle of his grammar, and this particular example he considers to be an example of the tamyiyz; he nowhere else cites the principle of separation, and certainly his predecessor Mubarrid, and his student Sarraj (I: 222 ff.) largely ignore the principle, nor is it mentioned by Zajjaj's contempory Lughda. Whether he was too loyal a Basran to criticize did not understand what the structural significance context, Zajjaj does not criticize a concept that Discussing the following Quranic passage, Zajjaj however (see Baalbaki 1981: 3).

Sibawayh or whether he really of separation could be in this8 in fact was out of fashion. is not so sparing of Farra',

(30) §('inna llaaha yubaşşiruka bi-kalimat-in min-hu) indeed God inform you by-word-i from-him wajiyh-an fiy l-dunyaa wa l-'axari eminent-a in def-earth and def-other" ("God is carrying tidings to you with his word) eminent on the earth and the hereafter" (3/118, cf. Farra' I: 231.12) Q 53 Some grammarians say that wajiyhan is a-inf form because it is qať "cut" from 'iysaa "Jesus", but in this context qať is incorrect terminology, because he informs him in this condition, so how can it be qať (cut off, separate) from him; moreover, it doesn't explain why this qať is a-inf. If the qať is a meaning, then the meaning does not correspond to this passage, and if the qať is a governor, then it is not clear what the governor is, and if the qať refers to the fact that the definite article is deleted (from wajiyhan), then that is wrong since all haal constructions are indefinite and lack the definite article, so how can something be cut off that is never there? 1:416 Zajjaj here criticizes the notion of qať on semantic and structural grounds, and to the extent that his interpretation of the notion of qať is correct, his criticisms carry weight. It should be mentioned that Zajjaj is not necessarily knocking down straw men. In the Kitaab al-Jumai fi ai-Nahw (=KIN), certainly erroneously attributed to Xalil and probably stemming from the late ninth or early tenth century (cf. 9.5 for further discussion), the "a inf form from the qať, nasb 'alaa l-qať" in

As a local factor in the AP pairs of (9d) and in 'isruwna dirhaman it continues to be of significance. These contexts are in fact the origin of Sibawayh's model.


(31a)

tasaaqata 'alayka rutb-an fell on you moisture-a "You were wetted with heavenly moisture". is paraphrased as (31b)

123

janiyy-an heavenly-a

tasaaqata 'alayka

l-rutb-u l-janiyy-u def-moisture-u def-heavenly-u Q 54 ...and when the definite articles are deleted [from l-rutbu l-janiyyu in (31b)] they are made a-inf form because of the qat' [in this context] "deletion" of the definite article. KJN: 38

The process described (32) 'al- + N + case x — > 0 + N + a-inf is precisely one point that Zajjaj finds unacceptable. On the other hand, it is not clear that this is what Farra' understands by qat', where, as seen in Q 48, it refers to some sort of structural/semantic break between predicative element and modifiers, and as such is similar to Sibawayh's understanding of the haal construction (cf. introduction to 6.2). There are two instances where Farra's use of qat' in conjunction with an a-inf occurs in constructions that, according to Farra', lack the definite article. They deserve closer exposition in order that Zajjaj's criticisms can be put into a better perspective. The two constructions are similar, so discussion of one will suffice. In (33)

§ imra'at-u-hu hammacalat-a/hammaalaťu l-hatab-i wife-u-his carrier-a/u def-wood-i "his wife, the carrier of the wood" III: 298.11 (111/4) there are four analyses, two involving u-inf hammaalat-u, which represents the standard form, and two a-inf. Farra' identifies neither the -u nor -a variants with a specific source. The a-inf forms are of interest here, one analysis of which is said to be a-inf because hammaalat-a is "qat'an". Q 55 Because it is indefinite, you can say (a) imra'atuhu l-hammaalat-a l-hatabi and if you delete the a/-, definite article, [from al-hammaalata] it becomes indefinite, and it is impossible for an indefinite noun (hammaalata) to modify a definite (imra'atuhu). III: 298.15 The a-inf reading is justified by "deriving" (34b) from (34a).

124 (34a)


imra'atuhu

l-hammaalat-u al- + N hammaalat-a

+

Ni-inf---> + Ni-inf + (34b) imrďatuhu Ni-inf N + Ni-inf Both (34a) and (34b) are possible according to Farra', but should (34b) be chosen, then hammaalata automatically takes a-inf form, because, as with Sibawayh's haal, an indefinite cannot modify a definite. Note that Farra's analysis specifically answers one of Zajjaj's (Q 53) criticisms: in this case Farra' can imagine the definite article being on the noun, but as soon as it is deleted the indefinite form hammaalat- must take a-inf (i.e. something was cut off that actually was there). The only other instance I have found where qať is associated with deletion of the definite article involves a similar type of duality (I: 328.16). It is relevant to note that when Sibawayh (215.10) mentions the alternative (34b), he does not refer to an analysis with a haal or qať. On the other hand, nowhere does Farra's treatment correspond to that in the KJN cited in Q 54, where, for example, there is either a single AP form (KJN 38) or N + adj (39) as the qať constituents. For Farra' qať and deletion of al- are restricted to certain N + N constructions, while the general notion of qať nearly always corresponds to a situation like that summarized in Q 48, i.e. to a haal, as Nahhas states. The fact that Zajjaj's criticisms are at variance with Farra's actual treatment, but are perhaps germane to the treatment in the KJN, indicates that Farra's terminology continued to have currency after his death, but that it came to have a different interpretation, that there were earlier and later 'Kufan' schools, so to speak.9 6.3 Sequence of the tamyiyz (or, the proper use of analogy) The previous examples dealt with developments which are implicit in differing treatments of the grammarians, but which for the most part never were explicitly described as having a developmental trajectory. There are, however, cases where later grammarians clearly stated that their treatments were at variance with those of their predecessors. I cite one such case here. As noted in chapter 3 (cf. Q 12), Farra' does not allow a tamyiyz to be fronted before a verbal predicate.

This example is interesting in providing an example of a specific concept coming under attack, something that doubtlessly expedited the disappearance of the term from the later grammatical repertoire. Unfortunately for our efforts to determine the cause of the development and abandonment of particular concepts, such explicit criticisms are rare, either because they were in fact rare or because few have survived in the literature. Zajjaj's interpretation of the qať is also found in Batalyusi, 139.


125

(35a)

safiha zaydun ra 'y-a-hu be silly Zayd opinion-a-his "Zayd is silly in his opinion". (35b) *ra'yahusafiha zaydun Similarly Sibawayh (I: 85.19) does not allow the tamyiyz element maa'an to be fronted, arguing that the verb which governs a-inf forms in examples like (36) below does not have the "power" of normal transitive verbs and consequently the object which 'imtala'a governs does not partake of the usual properties of objects. It must, for example, always be indefinite and unlike other objects cannot be fronted before a verb (cf. 7.1.1, Q 57). (36a)

(36b)

'imtala'-tu maa'-an filled-I water-a Tm filled up with water". *maa'an 'imtala'tu

Mubarrid, on the other hand, following Mazini, notes the parallel between the (b) sentences and sentences containing a haal. (37a)

(37b)

jaa'a zaydun came Zayd "Zayd came riding" raakiban jaa'a zaydun

raakib-an riding

Mubarrid observes that just as a haal can be fronted before a morphologically regular verb, as in (37b), so too can a tamyiyz be, and he hence rejects Sibawayh's judgment about (36b), considering it a possible sentence. The fronting of the tamyiyz, just as the fronting of a haal, applies, however, only with a morphologically regular verb as predicate. Sarraj (I: 223) summarizes the two positions, correctly associating the nonfronting constraint with Sibawayh and the Kufans (= Farra'), i.e. with the earliest linguists, and the fronting with Mazini and Mubarrid. Sarraj himself is sympathetic with Mubarriďs opinion. In this instance, however, the revisions of the later grammarians did not win out. Zajjaji (Jumal: 242) asserts, without explanation, that the tamyiyz cannot be fronted under any circumstances. The earliest explicit support of this view I have found is in Saymari (318 ff.) and Ibn Barhan (141) and it is argued for further by Jurjani (Muqt: 695). These writers assert that Mubarrid has drawn a false analogy between the haal and tamyiyz in (36) and (37). The haal can be fronted because it is identical with the agent (zaydun in the examples) both in form and meaning, though the true agent is zayd. If the haal is fronted, the true agent remains post-verbal. In (36) on the other hand, the tamyiyz is regarded as the true agent, as if it is actually the water that fills something up (cf. 7.1 and Owens 1988: 238). The agent -tu which the verb governs is merely the formal agent, not the true (semantic) agent, which is maa'an. This true agent cannot occur before the verb, because agents are never fronted before verbs (or if they are, the sentence becomes a nominal one). This reasoning is accepted by Anbari and enshrined with various embellishments in question 120 of his Insaaf.

126

SIBAWAYH AND FARRA'

Here has been seen another instance where Farra' and Sibawayh stand opposed to the three generations of linguists after them (Mazini, thMubarrid, Sarraj), but where, rather unusually, grammarians in the course of the 4 /10th and later re-adopted Sibawayh's and Farra's original positions, albeit on the basis of newly-developed arguments.

127

VII FARRA' AS TRANSITIONAL FIGURE

In the previous chapter it was seen that in certain respects a dichotomy can be established between earlier and later grammarians. The boundary may differ for individual issues. The SNIP principle had given way to a functional one by Mubarriďs day for instance (6.2), but in respect to the idea of what governs a possessor noun Mubarrid falls perhaps among the earlier grammarians (2.2). In all cases, however, Sibawayh, Farra', and Axfash have ideas that are clearly distinct from Sarraj, and it is here that one can draw a line between earlier and later grammarians. Such a division is by no means universally valid, however, for there are important respects in which Farra' emerges as a figure transitional between Sibawayh and later generations. I will discuss three such cases here; others have already been mentioned (e.g. in 5.5). 7.1 The Specifier, tamyiyz So far as our sources go, the first to use the term tamyiyz is Mubarrid (III: 3238) who also termed it tabyiyn (cf. n. 7 below). Q 56 Know that the tamyiyz is governed either by a verb or what resembles a verb in its interpretation and its meaning as an a-inf complement is unitary though it has various governors. III: 32 Mubarrid includes within this category examples of the following type. (la) (lb) (lc)

(Id)

'isruwna dirham-an 20 dirham-a "20 dirhams" tasabbaba l-faras-u 'araq-an dripped def-horse-u sweat-a "The horse dripped with sweat", haadaa 'afdalu-hum rajul-an this best-them man-a "This is the best of them as a man". hasbu-ka bihi sujaa'-an beware him braveness-a "Watch out for his braveness".

128 (le)

FARRA' AS TRANSITIONAL FIGURE

mi'atu 100

dirham-in dirham-i

all of which became standard tamyiyz items.

"100 dirhams" 1

7.1.1 Sibawayh For Sibawayh all but (lb) and (le) are associated with SNIP, and in fact (la) serves as the paradigmatic member of the class (cf. 6.2, (10a)). At the same time, Sibawayh gives no class name to the tamyiyz construction, which he deals with mainly in three separate places (84-88, 235, 236, 250-262; cf. Dahdal 1977: 39-44) and he uses no single term in describing the function of the constructions. One finds terms such as tabyiyn "clarification", and 'ixtassa naw'un "specify the type" (257.12), as well as tafsiyr (cf. 7.1.2), though in no account is a single term consistently used. For example, in some contexts the term tafsiyr is applied to a class of items which in later theory fall within the specifiers. The a-inf in (2a)

b)

rubba-hu raju1-an 259.1 many-it man-a "many a man" nima rajul-an 'abdu llaahi great man-a Abdullah "What a man is Abdullah"!

in later theory falls within the class of specifier; Sibawayh designates their function as tafsiyr "explanation". Here, however, Sibawayh is applying the notion of tafsiyr to those constructions which have a cataphoric pronoun whose referent must be clarified by an overt noun (258.19, 259.6/8/9/10, 260.12/18). In (a) -hu is clarified by rajulan, in (b) the implicit pronoun in nťma by rajulan: "You cannot simply say nťma or rubbahu, because they begin with a pronoun which needs to be clarified, since they are pronouns fronted before their nouns" (259.5). Thus, equally eligible for qualification by the term tafsiyr is the pronoun (damiyr al-sa'n of later grammarians) in (2c)

'inna-hu kiraam-un indeed-it generous/pl-u "Indeed your people are generous".

qawm-u-ka people-u-your

259.11

where -hu is cataphoric to the following sentence (cf. 8.2.2 for fuller discussion of this construction). Similarly, in other contexts tafsiyr is used to describe ellipted material (35.15, 37.22).

The archetypical tamyiyz in later grammar is always an a-inf form (e.g. Sar I: 222, Zam 65 ff.). Among the tamyiyz-governing items are numerals (la, e above). Although complements of numerals have formal properties in common, nearly always lacking the prefix al~ for example, they differ in that some numerals (e.g. 1-10, 100) require an i-inf complement, others (11-99) an a-inf. Despite their iinf form, complements of numerals like mi'a "100" (le) are considered tamyiyz (Zam 213). The genesis of this classification and its implications for Arabic theory are unfortunately beyond the scope of the present study.


129

Sibawayh's term tafsiyr thus partly intersects with the later set of tamyiyz constructions, though his use of the term is conceptually different from the notion of tamyiyz, and is different from Farra's also, as will be seen presently in 7.1.2. Of greater interest is his ambiguous treatment of examples like (lb). On the one hand it is discussed just after 'isruwna dirhaman is explained (I: 85) and shares certain similarities with the 'isruwna dirhaman construction, for example, its restriction to indefinite form in the complement. However, it is clear from his explanation of examples like (3 a)

'imtala'-tu maa'-an filled-I water-a "I was filled with water". (3b) tafaqqa'-tu sahm-an burst-I grease-a "I burst from food". that these constituents have formal relations in other directions as well. Q 57 There are types of verbs that more appropriately take objects (maf'uwl) although they don't have the formal status of direct objects; these are [verbs like] (3a) and (3b). 85.17 He then goes on the clarify the formal differences between the object-like complements of these verbs and those of other objects: they can only be indefinite, cannot precede the verb (cf. 6.3), and occur with verbs that are not transitive but rather are intransitive like 'infa'ala forms. He then explains Q 58 Basically these examples (3) mean (a) 'imtala'-tu min il-maa'-i'Iwas filled from water". (b) tafaqqa'-tu min il-sahmi"I burst from the food". then the prepositions (min) are deleted and the verb governs the complements like objects, which is more appropriate. 86.1 (3) and (Q 58 a,b) are related as are (4a) 'isruwna dirham-an "20 dirhams" and (4b) 'isruwna min il-daraahim-i "20 from the dirhams" 85.6 (cf. below)

130


Nevertheless, it is equally clear that Sibawayh sees (3) as having object complements, and if my observations in 6.2.1 are correct, therefore to be of a structurally different class, falling within the transitivity system. 7.1.2 Farra' It was noted in 6.2.2.2 that while Farra's characterization of the specifier construction has a similar structural basis as Sibawayh's, symbolized in Farra's use of the term xuruwj, Farra' is also distinctive in his greater emphasis on the meaning of the construction. This point holds for a whole range of examples. In the following I indicate in brackets after the example the analysis given the construction by later Quranic commentators; all agree in designating the construction tamyiyz ( = Nahhas' tabyiyn or bayaan). (5a)

§mil'-u l-ard-i dahab-an I:225.15 "A quantity of land in gold". (3/91) (Zaj I: 451 = tamyiyz, Nahhas I: 351 = bayaan) = §6 (22)

(5b)

'isruwna dirhaman "20 dirhams" (same page references for Farra', Zajjaj, Nahhas)

(5c) fa 'in tib-na la-kum 'an say'-in min-hu and if good-f/pl to-you on s.t.-i from-it "And if they themselves wish to give you something". (4/4) I: 256.4 (Zaj II: 9 = tamyiyz, Nahhas I: 394 = bayaan)

nafs-an self-a

(5d)

§qul hai 'u-nabbi'ukum bi-sarrin min daalika say Q I-warn-you of evil-i from that "Suppose I forewarn you of an evil so that you don't do it". I: 314.1 (5/60) (Zaj II: 205 = tamyiyz)

ma0uwbata recompense

(5e)

§ 'aw 'adl daalika siyaam-an or equal that fasting-a "Or whatever equals that as a fast". (5/95) (Nahhas I 520 = bayaan)

I: 320.13

(5f)

§ra'aytu 'ahada'asara kawkab-an saw-I eleven comets-a "I saw 11 comets" (12/4) (Nahhas II: 312 tamyiyz)

II: 32.13

(5g)

§ fa lahu jazaa'-an l-husna II: 159.3 and to-him reward-a def-good "and he will have paradise as a reward" (18/88) (Qaysi II: 48 = tamyiyz; Nahhas II: 471 "Farra' said that jazaa'an is a -inf as a tamyiyz")

131


(5h)

marartu bi rajulin

hasan-in wajh-an good-i face-a "I passed a man handsome of face". (Qaysi II: 53: nusiba 'alaa l-tafsiyr, Nahhas III: 13 = tamyiyz)

11:166.11

(5i)

kam biy'a laka jaariyat-an how many sold to you slave-a "How many were sold to you as female slaves"?

II: 341.10

(5j)

lillaahi darr-a-hu rajul-an II: 104.3 to God achievement-a-his man-a "How good a man God made him!" (also II: 140.16, 308.15, 320.13, and probably I: 57.9) In only four of these examples (5a, b, c, f) is the term xuruwj "separation" or one of its cognates used; (5e) is explained with a paraphrase involving min (in the manner of (3a,b) above)2, and in one case (5j) Farra' uses the expression tarjama "interpret, translate", arguing that "an object cannot be a haal' (II: 104.2). That is rajulan in (5j) is not a haal but rather interprets, or explains the preceding word (mutarjim li maa qablahu). What unifies all of the examples, however, is the term fassara "explain" (or one of its cognates, tafsiyr (VN), mufassir (AP)), etc. which characterizes the function of the a-inf item. He explains (5c) for example as follows. Q 59 (5c) is like (a) fa 'in taab-at 'anfus-u-hunna la-kum 'an say'in and if good-f selves-u-them f to-you and the action [represented in (5c)] is moved from "selves" to -hunna "them f', and "selves" moves (xarajd) into a peripheral position for elaboration (mufassiratan) I: 256.4 Farra' envisages the following interpretation. (6a) taab-at... 'anfusu-hunna — > (6b)tib-na...nafs-an where the subject of (6a) 'anfusu serves as tafsiyr in (6b), with the object pronoun hunna of (6a) assuming subject position in (6b). Clearly for Farra' the notion of tafsiyr has attendant structural properties -- all of the a-inf forms are indefinite (in (5) and see II: 168.6), and it could also be said that there is some element intervening between the a-inf and its governor. Farra', however, foregoes mention of these points; he sometimes does employ the quasiformal notion of xuruwj - in Q 59 it represents the "movement" of 'anfusu from After explaining the a-inf construction 'alaa l-tafsiyr he says "if min is interpretable here, then it is deleted and (the noun) is put in the a-inf. See, you say, 'he has that amount of (= min) fasting" I: 320.13.

FARRA' AS TRANSITIONAL FIGURE 132 agent to position of tafsiyr -- but he always mentions the semantic notion of tafsiyr in connection with these constructions.3 Noteworthy here is the fact that tafsiyr is applied both where the a-inf complement specifies a noun as in (5a, b) and where it describes a verb (5 c, d).

Sibawayh on the other hand was seen above to have had no unified category of tamyiyz construction, even allowing for an imprecise terminology, because the verbal tamyiyz of (6b) ultimately belongs to his transitivity system. At best Sibawayh could bring the verbal tamyiyz and non-verbal tamyiyz constructions together within the terms of what can be called a generic partitive paraphrase, N + min + al + N (cf. Q 58 a, b, e.g. (4b)). Indeed, Lughda does offer the generalization that "you interpret (taqiysu) all tamyiyz constructions 4with min 'from' or bi 'by'" (239), though he does not discuss the verbal tamyiyz at all. It would appear then that in the eighth and ninth centuries there were two interpretations of the tamyiyz construction. Sibawayh's was essentially partitive, as Lughda recognized. In its ambiguous treatment of the verbal tamyiyz, however, it failed to clearly class the construction as a part of the transitivity (as object) system or as part of SNIP (via its relation to 'isruwna dirhaman). Farra', while acknowledging a partitive interpretation in certain instances (cf. n. 2), offers a solution to the problem of a unitary treatment of the tamyiyz in a general way by consistently applying the semantic notion of tafsiyr "explanation" to tamyiyz constructions. At the same time, he also implicitly includes two quite separate sub-classes, the measurement tamyiyz (5a, b, f) and that in which the specifier is identical with what it describes, what might be termed the 'qualifying tamyiyz'. Sibawayh it is true recognizes the identity of (7)

haadaa hasan-u l-wajh-i = hasan-un wajh-u-hu 82.20 this good-u def-face-i = good-u face-u-his This one is handsome of face". = "handsome is his face" and by implication the identity of the specifier with the item it describes, at least for the class of qualifiers5 (sifa musabbaha I: 82-84). Farra', however, while noting this example ((I: 166.11), goes further in pointing out the identity of 'true' verbal agent and specifier, as illustrated in Q 59 and (6) above. He thus sets the parameter by which the 6tamyiyz becomes indelibly identified in the grammatical repertoire (cf. (8) below). Tafsiyr also has other usages, as when an entire sentence is said to explain what precedes it ((I: 296.13). The function of min is at one point said to explain (fassara) a noun (II: 103.12), and in one example (II: 157.11) tafsiyr characterizes an a-inf noun which later became interpreted as a haal or reason object. The question of Farra's technical terminology is discussed in 7.1.4. 4 Ibn Jinni (Luma': 149), and his commentator Ibn Barhan (I: 140) and Ibn 'Aqil (I: 664) all turn to the min paraphrase to explain the specifier. It is perhaps significant that the min paraphrase is especially common in the short pedagogical grammars, whereas longer works, like the Muqtasid include an interpretation of the tamyiyz in which the tamyiyz is displaced from its original function. Sibawayh does not recognize Farra's example hasanin wajh-an, though the fact that it does appear in Farra' gives it a greater claim to validity than Carter would allow (1972b: 486 n. 3). Thus the 'Basran' grammarian Zajjaj mentions the "tafsiyr as agent" interpretation only in discussing (implicitly) Farra's ideas on the subject (1:190).

133


Mubarrid (III: 32 ff.) largely follows Sibawayh in pointing out the parallel between the -n of 'isruw-na (dirhaman) and the separative function in parallel tamyiyz constructions, for instance the separative function of -hum in 'afrahu-hum ('abd-an) "the liveliest of them as far as the slaves go", as a way of accounting for the a-inf form of the tamyiyz (cf. 6.2.4). At the same time, however, Mubarrid, unlike Sibawayh, sees all tamyiyz as being governed by a verb, or what resembles one (cf. Q51)/ Sarraj adopts Mubarrid's theory of goverance for the tamyiyz, but in recognition of the difference between the measurement and qualifying tamyiyz describes the measurement specifier (I: 307) separately from the qualifying (II: 222). For the latter Sarraj implicitly follows Farra' in an important way in stating that the specifier is semantically an agent (al-mafuwl [= tamyiyz] huwa faa'iluhu fiy lma'naa, I: 222). With Sarraj the partitive interpretation has lost out to that of tamyiyz = underlying agent (cf. 6.3 (35, 36). One final amendment is added before a fully holistic account of the tamyiyz can be given, however. As noted, Sarraj treats the qualifying and measurement tamyiyz separately. Saymari is the first I have found who attempts to define the two sub-classes by a common feature, albeit a binary one. He distinguishes the tamyiyz as manquwl and gayr manquwl "transposed" and "non-transposed" (I: 316) where the feature "transposed" refers to the fact that the qualifying tamyiyz represents a meaning that is usually encoded in a different function. In tasabbaba l-farasu 'araq-an "the horse dripped sweat" it is really the sweat that drips and hence the tamyiyz 'araqan is regarded as having been transposed from its original function of agent (cf. 6.3 for theoretical ramifications of this observations). The measurement tamyiyz on the other hand is not transposed in this sense. Ibn Barhan (I: 139) gives a similar distinction, though neither Farisi ('Iydaah: 691, 729) nor his commentator Jurjani offer a unitary characterization of the tamyiyz. Zamaxshari, however, carries Sarraj's observations a step further, formulating a single definition of the tamyiyz as follows. Q 60 The specifier constructions have a final form that is different from the basic one; you see, if you take the basic meaning of a tamyiyz it is described by the item it is in a relation to as a-inf form. Zam 66 (8a)

'isruwna 20

dirham-an dirham-a

Nahhas frequently uses bayaan where others of his generation use tamyiyz, though he also has tamyiyz. Farisi uses separate terms for measure tamyiyz = Farisi's tabyiyn and other tamyiyz constructions (= his tamyiyz) in part a distinction deriving from Sibawayh (I: 87.1), though it is not a well-established distinction. As direct evidence for Farra's influence in the tamyiyz construction, both Sarraj (I: 225) and Zamaxshari (65) (among others) explain the meaning of the tamyiyz as "explaining" (mufassir) something; cf. 5.8., while Qaysi in one place slips in the term tafsiyr where perhaps he rather meant to use tamyiyz (cf. (5h)). Zubaydi (97, 100, 143) is one later grammarian who uses tafsiyr as a categorical term for the specifier construction.

134


is thus paraphrased as (8b)

daraahim-u 'isruwna dirhams-u twenty In such a formulation all tamyiyz items, not only the manquwl of Saymari, are understood as undergoing a transposition of some sort, and hence the entire class shares this single common feature. Note here that in (8a/b) specifier and specified {tamyiyz/mumayyaz) are bound together as noun and modifier in a relation of identity.8 Perhaps nowhere else did Arabic grammar evolve away from its origins in Sibawayh (cf. the SNIP principle) as it did in the description of the tamyiyz construction. This evolution can be summarized as follows. (9a) Sibawayh i) No cover term for tamyiyz. ii) Non-verbal tamyiyz governed in terms of SNIP iii) Verbal tamyiyz related via partitive paraphrase to 'işruwna dirhaman (SNIP system) but structurally belongs to transitivity system. (9b) Farra' i) All tamyiyz constructions characterized by term tafsiyr. ii) Idea of xuruwj "separation" sometimes applied and partitive (miń) character of construction noted once. iii) Class of verbal tamyiyz interpreted as relating to agent. (9c) Mubarrid i) tamyiyz named explicitly ii) all tamyiyz governed by verb or what is of class of verb (9d) Sarraj i) Farra' (iii) and Mubarrid (i, ii) ii) Measure tamyiyz explicitly identified as sub-class (9e) Saymari i) Like Farra' (iii), Mubarrid (i, ii) ii) all tamyiyz either manquwl or gayr manquwl (9f) Zamaxshari i) Mubarrid (i, ii) ii) All tamyiyz are basically transposed from another function, iii) One structural class thereby developed corresponding to one semantic characterization.

Effectively this leads to a paraphrase with the tamyiyz being diagnosed as an 'underlying' agent, object or topic.


135

7.1.3 Categorical and gradualistic development I should caution that these observations are not intended to prove that Farra' explicitly defined the specifiers as a class, for that is certainly not the case, nor that he was the first to implicitly recognize them. In 5.2.3.1 (e.g. (53)) it was seen, for example, that Sibawayh distinguished three categories of items that describe (wasafa) a noun without (in 237.2) giving them a specific name: description of a noun by what is semantically identical to and part of it ( = qualifier) description of a noun by what is semantically identical to but not part of it ( = haal) description of a noun by what is neither semantically identical to nor part of it ( = tamyiyz) It is clear from Sibawayh's examples that he has in mind the qualifier (sifa), haal and specifier, and hence it can be assumed that he implicitly recognized the specifier as a class distinct from the qualifiers and haal. This point is further confirmed by the fact that those constructions that later came under the aegis of specifier were not usually identified as either qualifier (sifa) or haal by Sibawayh, even if, as Dahdal (25, 26) points out, in isolated cases (235.13) what later became known as specifier was included among the haal. Rather these constructions had various designations, as noted at the beginning of 7.1.1, or were simply identified by the cue word method (4.2.4). The existence of a class without a name continued with Axfash (cf. 6.2 Q 38), who also distinguishes the haal from specifier, though again only implicitly. Farra' similarly does not actually list the sub-classes of specifier; he usually uses the term tafsiyr, though this term is not wholly reserved for the 'specifier' (cf. 7.1.4). Once again, however, he specifically contrasts the haal to the types of items which make up the specifiers (II: 104.2, cf. e.g. (5) above). What one observes is the gradual development of a concept which was, from at least Sibawayh's day, as much a property of the community of linguists as a whole as of any one linguist. For Sibawayh, Farra' and Axfash (1) the morphological properties of the specifier as indefinite singular noun was set; (2) the class membership was approximately established; and (3) its contrast to the haal was explicitly recognized. In terms of the last point the three linguists form a unity against later grammarians in that to bring out the difference between the specifier and haal they resort to exemplification rather than to a general definition of the two constituents. At the same time, the reputedly unorthodox Farra' in emphasizing the semantic nature of the specifier identified a defining attribute of the construction that was to become part of the orthodox grammatical canon, and avoided certain ambiguities relating to class membership that were implicit in Sibawayh's treatment.

136


7.1.4 The precision of Farra's terminology In 5.5.3 I argued that Farra's term takriyr corresponds generally to the badal "substitute" of other grammarians; I noted at the end of that section that takriyr was also used for literal repetition as well. Of further relevance is the observation that what later became known as the badal was also termed tafsiyr, rarely tarjama by Farra'. Tafsiyr, as argued in 7.1.2, otherwise serves as Farra's concept for specifier; however, it also occasionally is applied to a haal as well. This situation is not an unfamiliar one. In 5.3.3 aspects of Sibawayh's terminology were described in terms of 'free variation', one term freely varying over two extensional classes (5.3.3.1) or two different classes being designated by one name (5.3.3.2). Such is the case here. Takriyr describes the substitute relation for Farra', but so too does tarjama on one occasion (II: 103.11) and tafsiyr on at least seven. For example (10)

'ind-iy daabbat-aani bagl-un wa birdawn-un at-me animals-2/u mule-u and work horse-u II: 69.4 "I have two types of pack animals, a mule and a work horse". The nouns baglun/birdawna are said to explain (mufassir) the noun daabbataani, their function clearly being one of substitution.9 Two concepts explain one class of items. Similarly, the haal is termed qať by Farra', but also haal and tafsiyr (e.g. I: 193.10). Looking at the same data in another way, where tafsiyr designates not only the substitute but also repetition (cf. 5.5.3 e.g. (64)), one term varies over two classes of items. The question to be raised here then is on what basis one can claim Farra' to have distinguished a category of tafsiyr, even implicitly corresponding to what later came to be known as specifier, when tafsiyr equally applies to other categories (i.e. as determined by later grammarians). The answer is that one cannot, at least not without qualification. What one can do is show that in various ways a term x in Farra' corresponds centrally to another term y in other linguists. For 'centrality' I would adduce three types of evidence. First, Farra's x describes a construction which y describes; dirhaman in 'isruwna dirhaman is a tafsiyr (= x) and dirhaman in Sibawayh (y) is a prototypical member of the class which in Sibawayh represents, inter alia, the set of items that came to be known as tamyiyz. Secondly, x is associated with general properties of the class in question. When Farra' gives rules of definiteness for the 'substitute' (cf. II: 279.12, III: 382.11) he uses the term takriyr, not tarjama or tafsiyr. When he speaks of the fact that a haal can modify either a definite or indefinite noun he uses the term qať (II: 104.4, III: 133.1, 255.4), less commonly haal (216.1); discussing the indefiniteness of the specifier (cf. §5 Q 21) he uses the term tafsiyr (I: 79.5). Cf. Qaysi II: 137 for such an analysis of a parallel construction containing a substitute, where Farra's tafsiyr (II: 273.7) = Qaysi's badal


137

Thirdly, x is statistically predominant for the given class of construction. The following chart summarizes the number of times Farra' refers to each class of item with the different terms 10 (cf, Ap IF for page citations). (11a) Class of construction Class total

term

7

Repetition

tarjama "translation, explanation"

23

Substitute

43

haal

19

specifier

2

reason object

takriyr "repetition - tafsiyr "explanation" haal qat' fi'l11 4

other

(11b) Term focus haal qať takriyr substitute repetition

100% 100 71 29

tafsiyr specifier substitute other haal reason object tarjama

53 22 12 6 6

repetition substitute specifier

33 33 33 fi'l ? term focus = number of times a term is applied to given class+total tokens of the term Here, as elsewhere, when concentrating on the development of a grammatical class, the "class of construction" refers to the lexical classes as they came to be defined by Sarraj and later grammarians. 11 1 have not undertaken to count the total tokens offi'l in the MQ; I include it here for the sake of as complete a listing as possible of the terms used to refer to the haal construction (cf.11cunder haal, and §8 (32) for discussion of fi'l).

138


(lie) Class focus specifier tafsiyr tarjama

95% 5

repetition takriyr tarjama haal qať haal tafsiyr

86 14 72 16 7 5

substitute takriyr 65 tafsiyr 30 tarjama 5 reason tafsiyr 100 class focus = total tokens a class is referred to by a given term+total tokens of the class

qat'-haal tafsiyr- specifier takriyr-substitute haal-haal takriyr-repetition tafsiyr-reason tafsiyr-substitute tarjama -repetition tarjama- specifier tarjama-haal tafsiyr-haal

86% 74 68 58 57 53 25.5 24.5 19 19 6.5

Relative prominence = average of (11b) + (11c), relative to individual terms The statistics in (11a) indicate that it would be naive to search for a one-toone correspondence between Farra's designation of the relevant grammatical phenomena and that applied by later grammarians. Nonetheless, a brief comparison of Farra' with later grammarians does confirm that his terminology is usually readily translatable into that of later writers. This is particularly evident in the tafsiyr literature. For instance, in 9 passages constructions which Farra' calls takriyr are given an identical analysis by Qaysi, except that Qaysi applies the term

139 badal to them, and in 4 cases Farra's tafsiyr corresponds to Qaysi's badal.12 Furthermore, as will be seen in chapter 9 (especially 9.5) some later linguists used paired terms like tafsiyr/tamyiyz as names of similar, yet distinctive categories. Moreover, in a number of cases later grammarians specifically state what the Basran-Kufan terminological correspondences were, observing for example that the Basran haal corresponds to the Kufan qať (e.g. Nahhas II: 323, Zajjaj I: 416). At least three different Kufan equivalences for badal were given (cf. 5.5.3), though I have collected more citations for takriyr than for any other term. Finally Zajjaj (I: 190) discussing the construction safiha ra'yahu/nafsahu "He is silly in his idea" (discussed in §3 e.g. (8)) writes that "some [unspecified] grammarians consider nafsahu to be a-inf as a tafsiyr". In rejecting this interpretation in the subsequent paragraph Zajjaj continues "as for me the meaning of the tamyiyz..." (my emphasis). The equivalence of tafsiyr = tamyiyz was too self-evident to require explicit mention. Such correspondences support the view that Farra's terminology is in some sense to be considered a technical linguistic vocabulary. ARABIC GRAMMAR: THE ERA OF HETEROGENEITY

There are of course problems of interpretation in individual cases. Farra' in II: 210.13,'inna haadihi 'ummatukum 'ummatun waahidatun " indeed this is your mother, one mother" says that 'ummatukum is a predicate (xabar) and that 'ummatun waahidatun repeats (yakurrru) 'ummatukum also as a predicate. In Qaysi's analysis13 (II: 406) this construction is analyzed in the familiar manner of a predicate ( = comment) embedded within a predicate (cf. Ibn Hisham ML: 490 ff.): ('inna) [haadihi]top1 [['ummatukum]top2 ['ummatun waahidatun]com2]com1. That is, 'ummatun waahidatun is comment to 'ummatukum, and this whole unit is in turn comment to haadihi. For two reasons, however, I think that Qaysi's analysis is not Farra's. First, Farra' did not generally operate with the constructs topic and comment (cf. 8.3 below), so that if he says that a noun is repeated in the function of comment he should be interpreted as meaning just that. Secondly, there is nothing inherently objectionable (i. e. within Farra's grammatical system) in regarding 'ummatun waahidatun as representing a category analogous to the badal of later grammarians.14 The statistics in (11) show that Farra' was utterly consistent in his usage of the terms haal and qať. "Consistent" can be defined in terms of "focus", where focus is a percentage derived by dividing the number of times a term is applied to a given class of linguistic phenomena (as defined by later grammar) by the total number of tokens of the term. Both terms have 100% focus, which means that the terms haal and qať always are applied to a class of items which in later theory became known as haal. (I do not investigate the basis of the difference between haal and qať.) 12

takriyr/badal Farra'/Qaysi, I: 7.6/I: 13, 51.2/61, 56.11/62, 316.1/241, II: 32.2/II: 22, 178.8/66, 291.15/148 360.6/208, 382.11/233 (Qasyi's II: 22 corresponds to a passage cross-referenced by Farra' that is analogous to that which Farra' actually discusses in II: 32.2); tafsiyr'/badal, II: 69.6/I: 446, 77.5/451, 198.11/II: 81, 273.8/137. For Nahhas I count 9 places where Farra's takriyr = Nahhas' badal, Farra'/Nahhas I: 7.6/I: 125, 51.2/190, 207.7/323, 316.1/511, II: 32.2/II: 310, 178.8/III: 38, 210.13/, 382.11/419, III: 279.11/V: 263. By implication, as in n. 11. 14 This would be an indefinite noun repeating a definite, a situation Farra' explicitly sanctions (III: 279.12; cf. discussion in §5, e.g. (61)).

FARRA' AS TRANSITIONAL F I G U R E 140 Less consistent is takriyr, though it still has a high degree of focus with 70% application to the substitute relation (70% of the tokens of takriyr refer to the badal construction of later theory, 30% describe something else). The term tafsiyr has a somewhat lower focus - one might say that it is approaching a degree of diffuseness.

I think it would indeed be difficult to see in Farm's total use of tafsiyr a unitary syntactic category. In some cases, as when he describes a specifier or reason object, he applies the term to an invariable a-inf complement; in others, as in I: 347.8, II: 77.5 or II: 273.8 he describes a modifying relation {badal) where agreement potentially varies, in the first two cases agreement being between nouns in a-inf form, in the third two verbs in 0-inf form.15 To the extent that there is unifying component, it is a semantic, descriptive one. A substitute, a haal, and a specifier all have in common the fact that they describe something about the item they are complement to, and given his exegetical goals, Farra' would have been as interested in a functionally appropriate term as in consistent syntactic terminology. These observations do not, however, detract from the argument that Farra's term tafsiyr served as a bridge to the later term tamyiyz. This contention rests on two points. First, as shown in 7.1.2, Farra' associated certain grammatical attributes with his tafsiyr construction, notably its paraphrase with an agent construction (cf. (6) above), which were picked up in later characterizations of the tamyiyz. The association of Farra's tafsiyr with the later tamyiyz thus rests on more than the correspondence of one class of items with another. Secondly, the correspondence is in any case striking, particularly when one looks at the data in (11c) summarizing class focus. This is the obverse of term focus (11b), representing the extent to which a given class of items is named by a given term. In particular Farra's class of specifier constructions nearly without exception are referred to with the tafsiyr terminology. At 94%, this has a higher percentage than for any other class of grammatical phenomenon. Here it is relevant to note that later grammarians, for example Tha'lab (437) and the author of the KJN (cf. 9.5.2.2), use tafsiyr for the substitute construction, and as noted in 5.8.1 (point 3) Sarraj uses the term mufassiratun to describe the function of the tamyiyz. Later observers clearly saw that Farra's tafsiyr had categorical significance. One final remark about the statistics in (11) I think is indicative of the relative prominence which Farra's terms were given by later observers. Relative prominence (cf. 11d) is measured as a percentage by taking from (11b, c) the average of a given term focus and class focus. For instance, for qat' this would be 100% (term focus) + 72% (class focus relative to gať) * 2 = 86%. The three highest composite percentages are those for gať (86%), tafsiyr (74%) and takriyr (68%), and these are just the terms which later grammarians most often associated with the Kufan terminology for haal, tamyiyz and badal respectively (though cf. above and 5.5.3 for badal). The overall statistical picture that emerges from (11) is of more than statistical significance; in general terms Farra' consistently associated specific constructions with certain terms and thereby created concepts which provided links Nor is there any complementarity with the term takriyr here; in II: 178.8 for example takriyr is applied to a N-N substitute relation in a-inf form.


141

for linguists in formulating their linguistic thinking.

12 The Locative, darf and sifa

One of the oft recognized differences between Kufans and Basrans (e.g. Sarraj I: 204, Anbari 51) was that of the16 term for locative; the darf of the Basrans corresponded to the sifa of the Kufans, a generalization that in fact is to a large extent correct, allowing for qualifications relating to the thinking of individual grammarians. As will be seen, for all the grammarians the notion of locative was applied both to a class of words and to a syntactic position; usually it was given a general semantic characterization as well. 7.2.1 Sibawayh All three of these points are readily apparent in Sibawayh. He introduces his main discussion of the duruwf as follows. Q 61 This is the chapter about the items describing time and place and how they have a-inf form, because objects exist in them and are in them... 170.17 The semantic basis of the class needs no comment. Place and time are typically represented by a word class, the duruwf, which consists of a range of items that Sibawayh orders in terms of what might be called 'inherent locativeness'. Time adverbials have this quality to the greatest ('asadd) degree, e.g. masaa', "afternoon", layla "night", nahaar "daytime", 'ayyaam "days" (94.21, 177.7); following these are place nouns like xalf "behind", takt "below" that are typically locatives (170.20, 173.13) while nouns like naahiya "side", daaxil "inside", or jawf "inside" less commonly fall into the class of locatives (173.10, 175.16, cf. Mosel 350). The criteria for deciding what is and is not a locative rest for Sibawayh on a complex of morphological, syntactic and semantic criteria. Morphologically all locatives17 are in a-inf form, the inflectional form here being explained in terms of the SNIP principle (171.14, cf. 6.2 (11b)). An item that is u-inf cannot be a locative, and indeed cannot even 'derive' directly from the category of locative (as explained below). 16 Sibawayh never uses the term sifa for "locative"; Farra' never uses darf in his MQ. In his MM he notes that place locatives, mawaadi' are variously called duruwf sifaat or mahall (109). He does not associate these terms with any one linguist or school. Allowing for apparent irregularities; cf. Mosel 351.

142


Similarly for Sibawayh i-inf precludes interpretation as a locative, and hence even though he explains locatives as items which tell "in what (fiyhaa) things exist" (170.18) prepositional phrases themselves do not count as locatives. He indeed makes this very clear where for example he says that naahiya in both (12a) and (12b) is to be classed as a noun. (12a)

huwa naahiyat-u l-daar-i he area-u def-house-i "It is the side of the house". (12b) huwa fly naahiyat-i l-daar-i def-house-i he in area-i "He is in the area of the house". In (12a) naahiyatu is a noun, the comment of the topic {huwa) with which it is identical, and hence the antithesis of a locative predicate that is characterized by non-identity (Carter 1972a, cf. 6.2 above). Also in (12b) it is a noun (al-majruwr bi manzilati l-ism (173.18)) like bayt "house". To prove this point he notes that there are words like "middle" that have variable forms according to whether they occur as nouns or locatives. (13 a)

zaydun

wast-a l-daar-i middle-a def-house-i "Zayd is in the middle of the house". (13b) zaydun fly wasat-i l-daari in middle-i "Zayd is in the middle of the house". (13c) darabtu wasat-a-hu hit-I middle-a-his "I hit his middle", (him in the middle) 173.18 Wasat is the noun, as Sibawayh confirms with example (13c) with wasat as direct object, an archetypical position of nouns; wast in (13a) is a locative. The crucial question is what form is used after the preposition, and Sibawayh says it is the noun form wasat (as in (13b)); hence he concludes naahiya (12) and indeed all nouns occurring as objects of prepositions are nouns, not locatives. Semantic factors also play a role in whether or not an item will be considered a locative. For example, Sibawayh notes that naahiya can be a noun, as in (12), but also a locative, as in (14)

huwa naahiyat-a-ka he area-a-your "He is in your direction". 171.1 with a meaning distinct from (12a), as indicated by the translations. Further, Sibawayh contrasts items like xalf "behind" which typically occur as locative, with those like jawf "inside", daaxil "inside" which rarely do (cf. (13) above), by arguing that xalf can be used to describe any area at all, whereas jawf, like batn "stomach" or yad "hand", is associated with one particular location.


143

At the same time Sibawayh is insistent that within his tri-partite division of the parts of speech, noun, verb, particle, the locative falls within the noun class. On the one hand Sibawayh distinguishes locatives from prepositions, which belong to the particle class, "those words which have a meaning but which are neither nouns nor verbs" (1.1). On the other hand, he shows that both semantically and syntactically locatives are a type of noun. Semantically he says that locatives are nouns which represent areas in which items lie (177.19, cf. Q 61 above); syntactically he is at some pains to illustrate ways in which locatives are to be identified as nouns. The method he uses is distributional (Diem 1971) and substitutional: locatives are equivalent to such nouns as zayd and 'amr. Q 62 All the items (described as locatives) can also be nouns, not locatives, of the class of zayd and 'amr 171.21 He substantiates this point by noting that they occur in syntactic positions other than that of locative, albeit with differing propensities of the various locatives to occur in other positions (173.19, Mosel 350, cf. above, discussion of inherent locativeness). These positions include object of preposition (i-inf). (15a)

daariy min xalf-i daar-i-ka house-my from behind-i house-i-your "My house is two parasangs behind yours".

farsax-aani farsax-2/u

Xalfi here is a noun because as object of the preposition min it cannot be a locative. In (15b) it is topic, and in (15c) direct object. (15b)

'ahlaka-ka l-layl-u wa l~nahaar-u 177.8 destroyed-you def-night-u and def-day-u "Night and day destroyed you". (15c) 'istawfay-ta 'ayyaam-a-ka 177.9 ended-you days-a-yourQ 63 "You brought your days to an end". The last two examples are particularly interesting in showing that the identification of an item as locative in any given context is ultimately a combination of semantic and abstract syntactic factors, rather than merely one of inflectional form: 'ayyaama for instance is a-inf form, and otherwise is a word which can function as a locative (i.e. has a locative meaning) but nevertheless in (15c) is a direct object because 'istawfaa is a verb which takes direct objects with temporal meanings. For Sibawayh then the category of locative (= darf) is defined by an intersection of semantic, syntactic and morphological criteria. Only when all three conditions are met, as in the final example in (16) below, does an item qualify as locative.18

Cf. Owens to appear b n. 7 for further discussion.

144 (16) Example

darabtu zayd-an 'istawfayta 'ayyaamaka huwa wast-a l-daar 7.2.2 Farra'


Criteria lexico-semantic: words that have meaning of loc + +

syntactic: in syntactic position of darf

morphological: a-inf form

+

+ + +

Farra', as already noted, has a completely different term for locative, namely sifa (rarely mahall, I: 28.3, 340.6, III: 219.1) which in many respects corresponds to Sibawayh's darf. For Farra' a sifa19 characterizes a word with locative function, such as yawma in (17a)

'atay-tu-ka yawm-a l-juma'ati II: 219.1 came-I-you day-a Friday "I came to you on Friday". As with Sibawayh this function has a status independent of the word which contracts it, though the evidence on this point is not so clear as with Sibawayh. Discussing the example (17b)

§ 'inna yawm-a l-fasl-i miyqaat-u-hum 'ajma'iyna indeed day-a judgment-i deadline-u-their all Indeed the Judgment Day is the appointed day for all". III: 43.11 (44/40) he says (by implication) that yawma is the noun of 'inna while miyqaatuhum is the predicate in u-inf, but "if you made miyqaatuhum a-inf it would be correct, and then al-yawma would be made sifa". This is to say that miyqaatuhum (in a-inf) would take over the function of the noun of 'inna. The inference here is that neither yawma nor miyqaatuhum in (17b) is a locative (sifa) but that yawma can assume this function. Once again one is dealing with abstract grammatical categories, since yawma has ainf form whether it is the noun of 'inna or a locative (sifa). Further, like Sibawayh, Farra' would appear to limit the words which can act as locatives, though again the evidence is somewhat indirect. Discussing the alternatives (18) qa'ad-tu laka 'alaa wajh-i stayed-I to you on face-i "I waited for you at the beginning of the road". I: 375.3 19

l-tariyq-i def-road

I leave out of discussion Farra's use of sifa as "descriptive word", often a qualifier, but not always. In some places it is equivalent to his na't (5.5), but it is used far less often.

145


He says that the preposition 'alaa can be deleted and its complement assume a-inf, = wajh-a l-tariyqi "because tariyq has the meaning of a locative (sifa), like layla "night" and yawma "day", and hence has the same possibility of occurring with and without a preposition (cf. below). That he has to justify the deletion of the preposition here and explain that tariyq has the meaning of a locative suggests there to be other nouns that lack this meaning which would not have two syntactic possibilities; that is, only certain words can assume a locative function. On the other hand, Farra's treatment differs in a number of ways from Sibawayh's, some of them small, some significant. Worthy of note, but not of great theoretical import, is for example, Farra's designating daaxil-a "inside" an a-inf form as locative (sifa, III: 219.1), something Sibawayh (173.11) would look askance at. Also relevant here is Farra's characterization of tariyq as a sifa, a characterization Sibawayh would probably be ill at ease with. A greater difference, though still one of degree rather than of kind from Sibawayh, is Farra's propensity to identify locative sifa on the basis of meaning: daaxil and tariyq have locative components in their meaning, and hence, given the appropriate grammatical contexts, are readily accepted by Farra' as locatives. 'Alaana "now" (I: 467.8) is a locative because "it has the form and meaning of a locative"; 'idaa (III: 158.13) is of the class of locatives with the meaning "at that time". I will illustrate this further in the next point, though would here note that although Sibawayh gives a clear semantic characterization of locatives (cf. 7.2.1), he is always careful to take into account the syntactic properties of the words concerned in his final classification (cf. discussion of (13) above). The greatest difference, and it is a categorical one, pertains to the items counted as locatives; for Sibawayh it is limited to a sub-class of nouns but for Farra' it is not only roughly this same sub-set of nouns but also includes prepositions and prepositional phrases, as the following examples illustrate. (19) Prepositions a)

"The preposition li or others of its class of locatives (sifaat) II: 385.5Q

64

"The preposition bi or others of its class of locatives" I: 404.1120 b) In III: 243.8 Farra' notes that Kisa'i reports the Arabs as using three verbs with or without a preposition marking their complement 'intalaqtu/dahabtu/xarajtu ('ilaa) l-fawr-a (4) left/went/went-I (to) def-once-a (-i) "I left/went/entered at once". the alternatives without the prepositions being described as having the meaning of a deleted locative (sifa). c) Other places where sifa refers to a preposition are I: 2.10, 32.10, 271.19, 322.6, 375.2, II: 21.11, III: 74.2. Cf. Sibawayh I:178.1 where bi (and other prepositions) are neither nouns nor locatives (darf).

146


(20) Prepositional phrases a) Prepositional phrases like 'ilay-ka "to-you" (and locative noun + i-inf complement like 'inda-ka "at you") are said to be used to give commands. 'alay-kum 'anfus-a-kum I:322.16 on-you selves-a-your "Take care of yourselves". This construction, however, can be used only where the prepositions {sifaat) are separable, so li-, bi- and ka-, which are written as bound forms, do not occur here. b) II: 81.3. A prepositional phrase fiy l-daari (= sifa) can be interposed between possessed and possessor {'idaafa construction, presumably where the possessed is an AP). haadaa daarib-u fiy 1-daar-i 'axiy-hi this hit-u in def-house-i brother-his "This one has hit in the house his brother". c) III: 146.7. If a predicate occurs between two prepositional phrases {sifataani), one of which contains a pronoun referring to the object of the first, then the predicate takes a-inf form (and hence does not head an independent S). § fa kaana 'aaqibata-humaa 'anna-humaa fiy l-naar-i fiy-haa and was end-their/2 indeed-they in fire-i in-it "Their (dual) end is in the eternal fire". (60/17) Other instances of sifa = PP are found in I: 31.11, 197.10, 244.4, 347.3, 362.10. (21) Locative nouns In I: 327.16 'inda-ka "at you" and duwna-ka "without you" are locatives {sifaat) that are used to give commands; 'alaana "now" is a locative in both form and meaning (cf. above), and as seen in (16) al-yawma can act as a sifa. Further instances where sifa = locative noun are I: 119.5,323.2,327.9,345.14, 362.10, II: 158.3. Farra' used semantic and distributional criteria to group these three morphologically distinct classes together under one label, sifa. For example, he notes that there is no difference in meaning between (22a)

'ataytuka yawm-a l-xamiysi came-I-you day-a Thursday "I came to you on Thursday".

and (22b)

'ataytuka

fiy in

yawm-i l-xamiys-i day-i

I:32.10

147 Yawma in a-inf form is the same as prep + noun fiy l-yawmi, and, of course, the two constructions have the same distribution. Farra' contrasts this with ARABIC GRAMMAR: THE ERA OF HETEROGENEITY

(23a)

kallam-tu-ka addressed-I-you "I addressed you". (23b) kallam-tu fiy-ka spoke-I at-you "I spoke about you", (also I: 397.6) where the deletion of fiy gives a different meaning. Similarly Farm's list of sifa that can be used to give commands includes both preposition + object and locative N + possessor (pssd + pssr, cf. (20, 21)), and the fact that both prepositions and locative nouns function in the same way and have the same class meaning of "command" undoubtedly led him to consider them within the same category. Related to this, another reason, which however, was never explicitly mentioned, perhaps pertains to the fact that many (of Sibawayh's) locatives regularly govern an i-inf complement in the same way prepositions do; duwna "without", 'inda "at" are locative nouns governing an i-mf complement, just like prepositions such as bi "by", li- "to". In bringing together various locative constructions on a distributional basis, Farra' has sidestepped one of the problems in Sibawayh's approach, namely that of drawing together in one category items that are morphologically and syntactically different but functionally similar, namely locative nouns on the one hand and prepositional phrases on the other. Such an approach would not contradict Sibawayh's principle of establishing the identity of classes via substitution, but because of Sibawayh's rather stricter criteria for membership in the darf class (e.g. a-inf form) it is not a step taken by Sibawayh. At the same time, however, Farra's treatment raises a serious problem for the tri-partite interpretation of the parts of speech. If prepositions and locatives are both sifa then what happens to the tri-partite division of words into nouns, verbs and particles, where particles conventionally include prepositions? The answer is not clear, not least because Farra' nowhere delineates what the parts of speech are which he recognizes.21 In this context one recalls that Sarraj (I: 204) criticizes the Kufans for confusing prepositions with (locative) = nouns, a 'confusion' found not only among the Kufans (cf. Lughda 225, and Nahhas reported in Omar 1987: 8; cf. Levin 1987: 354). Sibawayh avoids this problem; prepositions and prepositional phrases are not locatives (darf) and hence the question of classification is unproblematic.

Farra' does in various places distinguish lexical classes and sub-classes, 'anna, for example, is not a "true" noun, as opposed to a verbal noun, which is (I: 165.14). Nowhere, however, does Farra' unequivocally say how many major lexical classes he recognizes.

148


7.2.3 Axfash For Axfash there is relatively little material, though most of what there is links him directly with Sibawayh, beginning with the term for locative itself, darf. Like Sibawayh, Axfash characterizes the darf as that in which something lies (49.11) and for both the darf has only a-inf form. For instance, discussing the alternative forms of (24a)

siqaaq-a-n bayn-a-humaa difference-a-indef between-a-them/2 (24b) siqaaq-a bayn-i-himaa between-i-them/2 237.5 he says that siqaaq is either possessed (without tanwiyn, (24b)) or a locative (darf) with tanwiyn (24a). Similarly in (25)

§ tawaddu law 'anna bayn-a-haa wa bayn-a-hu she wants if that between-a-her and a-him 'amad-an ba'iyd-an 199.12 (3/30) distance-a far-a "She wants there to be a great distance (in time) between her and him". bayna is a locative, not a noun, because if it were a noun it would have u-inf. This echoes Sibawayh's contrast between locative-noun, darf-ism. In both examples, form and function co-vary, the darf taking a-inf form (cf. also 462.11). Further like Sibawayh, he notes in one place that not all a-inf nouns with locative meanings are necessarily darf. In (26)

'aw atrah-uw-hu 'ard-an 364.10(12/9) or cast-pl-it earth"or they cast it in the earth" 'ardan is not a locative, but rather is governed in the a-inf form by the verb after fry ( nujjfya. In this view the verb is active, an explanation criticized by Qaysi. By Ibn 'Aqil's day (I: 509), Farra's speculative explanation could be represented as standard Kufan reasoning.


155

7.3.3 Axfash The idea that a coherent theory of the passive was developed early finds further limited support in the work of Farra's contemporary Axfash. Like Sibawayh, Axfash frequently uses the term sagala for the relation between passive verb and derived subject (57.15, 158.5, 159.9, 464.3)28; also like Sibawayh he notes that the passive subject is of the class {marnila) of the active agent (464.3, 466.13). Most interesting, however, in one place (158.5) he also says that the Qpassive subject "takes the place of the active agent" (yaquwmu maqaama l-faa'il). 71 There is a further strengthening of the central role of the agent position as a sine qua non in the description of the passive, the role of agent being maintained even in passive sentences. The formal relation between active and passive subject is becoming ever clearer, a situation which I believe supports my suggestion that in the postSibawayh generation of linguistics the description of the passive had already reached a fairly complete level relative to later ideas. 7.3.4 Mubarrid Mubarrid associates himself with the latter two of his predecessors; like Farra' he speaks of "a verb whose agent is not named" (IV: 102), also of an "object whose agent is not named" (IV: 50). Like Axfash he views the object as taking the place of the agent, and indeed, it is Mubarrid who first developed this point systematically (cf. Owens 1988 6.6 for more details). Observing that verbs always require agents, intransitives, for instance, requiring agents but occurring without objects, he concludes Q 72 So given that verbs require agents, and [in the case of the passive] the agent is deleted, you put the object in its place, in order that the verb have an item in agent position [= vice agent, naa'ibu l-faa'il of later grammar]. IV: 50 He uses precisely Axfash's expression for the promotion of object, yaquwmu maqaama l-faa'il. 7.3.5 Sarraj Sarraj combines elements from all four of his predecessors, though so far as direct influence goes Farra' and Axfash/Mubarrid loom most prominent. Like Farra' he speaks of "that whose agent is not named" (I: 77.18, 81.14) or like Mubarrid "the object of which the agent is not named" (I: 76.19). Like Axfash and Mubarrid he describes the object as taking the place of the deleted agent Like Sibawayh, Axfash uses sagala in the context of other syntactic relations as well, including those marked by the a-inf (76.9, 209.13, 525.10). I have found no i-inf relation characterized by this term in Axfash. 29 This latter formulation is a compromise between Sibawayh, "an object whose action..." and Farra', though I feel the expression is modeled on Farra's formulation.

156


(77.7/13/16, 79.13 etc.), repeating Mubarriďs reasoning here (cf. 7.3.4, Q 72). Sarraj, like Sibawayh, also specifically mentions that the action is related to the object, though whereas Sibawayh represents this as an action "passing over from an object" (cf. 7.3.1) Sarraj accomplishes this by relating the morphological form of the passive verb to an object: the passive verb in the passive construction is "made into a form for the object" (77.10). Later accounts emphasize different aspects of these descriptions; Farisi in his 'lydaah speaks of the "verb whose form is for the object" (344), Ibn Jinni in his Lumď (118) of "the verb whose agent is not named". In the more comprehensive accounts all aspects are systematically tied together in one coherent description, such as the following based on Ibn Ya'ish (VII: 69, cf. also Ibn 'Aqil I:499, Shirbini (Carter 1981: 170). (37a) the agent is deleted < Farra' (agent is not named) (37b) agent is replaced by object < Axfash, Mubarrid (37c) verb is changed to passive form < Sarraj, reinterpreting Sibawayh As with the locative (though the later development has perhaps not been so closely illustrated), one sees how the later description represents a synthesis of different ideas developed by 2 nd /8 th and 3 rd /9 th century linguists, not the least important of which were those of Farra'.

157

VIII FARRA' AND THE PERIOD OF HETEROGENEITY

In the previous chapter it was seen that the development of a number of important concepts could be represented as occurring in stages and that in this process Farra' played an important mediating role. His ideas about the semantic properties of the specifier, the locative as a distributionally rather than morphologically defined entity, and the non-occurrence of agent as a distinctive feature of the passive all became central tenants in the description of these constructions by later grammarians. His ideas were of course not the only influence on the later formulation, and more often than not they served either to complement or add to concepts which had been adumbrated by his predecessor Sibawayh. What has, however, been consistently shown is that in important respects the Sibawayh-Farra', Basran-Kufan dichotomy greatly oversimplifies the actual developmental trajectory of Arabic linguistic thinking, specifically to the extent that such a model forces a binary either-or conceptualization of early grammatical theorizing. Nonetheless, as Baalbaki (1981) effectively shows, the Basran-Kufan division th th was more than an invention of 4 /10 century grammarians, for in part it did rest on real differences in 2nd/8th, 3rd/9th century linguistic thinking. In this chapter I will highlight this aspect of the early history of Arabic linguistic thought by noting three ways in which Farra' tended to have a distinctive linguistic perspective.

8.1 Meaning, Structural Categories and Terminological Precision As seen in chapter 4, Sibawayh's descriptive method makes heavy use of structural criteria. While this is also prominent in Farra' (cf. §3), a noticeable aspect of Farra's style, and one which traditionally is said to characterize the Kufan orientation (Weil: 29) is the lesser degree of emphasis on regularization of syntactic structures through interpretation of covert items. His syntax is in a sense more surface orientated. At the same time he not infrequently resorts to semantic paraphrase to achieve syntheses which Sibawayh sought in structural explanations. Examples of this have already been given; his notion of tafsiyr (7.1.2) rests on a semantic generalization, and the idea of locatives comprising items of different syntactic, and what Sibawayh could not accept, lexical, classes (nouns, prepositions, prepositional phrases, 7.2.2) correlates not only with a distributional unity but also with a semantic one, all such items having a locative meaning. Yet another case is discussed by Carter (1973b, Baalbaki 1981: 22) where in the context of modally marked (e.g. commands, negatives) compound sentences the second verb must take a-inf, in differentiation from the inflectional marking of the first verb. Farra'

158

FARRA' AND HETEROGENEITY

accounted for this in terms of sarf (I: 33.17, 57.5, 236.16, etc.), the non-identity of the types of action in the two parts of the sentence being reflected in a different verb form, while Sibawayh and Mubarrid explain it in terms of a deleted governor, 'an "that", a morpheme that governs an a-inf. (la) laa ta'kul-0 l-samaka wa tasrab-a l-labana not eat-0 def-fish and drink-a def-milk "Don't (both) eat the fish and drink the milk". (lb) laa ta'kul l-samaka wa ('an) tasraba l-labana Sib 378.181 Sibawayh insists on a canonical syntactic pattern into which examples like (lb) can be fit, whereas Farra' is content to look to other, in this case, semantic interpretations. A further example of Farra's attention to semantic differences concerns the following two examples, which I have parsed according to later practice, not Farra's, for ease of reference. (2a)

(2b)

Topic Comment haadaa l-assadu this def-lion "This is the lion, a fearsome animal". Topic Comment taqriyb haadaa l-assadu "Behold the fearsome one".

(?) haal maxuwf-an fearsome-a

I: 13.11 ff.

maxuwf-an

The two sentences have the same form, topic + comment + a-inf complement. Farra' distinguishes two structural analyses corresponding to two different meanings. The first is a generic meaning "you predicate (tuxbiru) about all lions" (I: 13.12). The second is what Farra' terms the taqriyb: the meaning describes a prototypical, quintessential trait about lions that is unique to them (cf. Ap ID (8) for further discussion). In this meaning the demonstrative is like an optional item; since the lion is described by a unique property, the mention of this property is enough to refer to the lion. The distinction drawn between (2a) and (2b) as well as the distinctive term taqriyb used to describe (2b) is entirely absent in Sibawayh, and indeed in almost all later grammatical discussion (cf. Owens to appear a), though as Talmon (1986b: 153) observes, Sibawayh did distinguish the special meaning of (2b) (Block 1986 56 ff.), without however, giving it individual categorical status. The example serves to illustrate how Farra' might use a minimal semantic difference to postulate different structural categories for constructions that are formally identical. At this juncture one might ask if there is some sort of trade off between attention to structural precision, as opposed to semantic accountability. Are, for Mubarrid (II: 26) paraphrases (la) as laa yakun minka 'aklun li-l-samaki, wa 'an tasrab-a llabana "there should be no eating of the fish from you, so long as you drink the milk", where only one of the two actions is allowed.


159

instance, Farra's semantic explanations gained at the expense of a structural system less precise than Sibawayh's? Without trying to establish a causal link between attention to semantics and lack of attention to formal syntactic adequacy, very tentatively it might be suggested that Farra's syntactic system was in some respects less refined than Sibawayh's, as illustrated in the following two examples.2 Sibawayh (1.9 ff.) distinguishes two sets of phonetically identical short vowels according to those that are syntactically conditioned, marking a given functional category, from those that are lexically conditioned, uninfluenced by syntactic context (i. e. roughly, those vowels which Arabic grammarians describe with sarf). (3) Names of short vowels in Sibawayh a. Syntactic b. Lexical raf damma nasb fatha jarr kasra

Phonetic value u a i

The syntactically-determined vowels are what I term the inflectional markers and occur suffixed to the stem in nominals and in imperfective verbs; the lexicallyconditioned vowels occur elsewhere. Sibawayh is very consistent in referring to only the syntactically-determined vowels with the terminology in (3a), and conversely the lexically-determined vowels with the terms in (3b). Farra' uses the same names (except xafd for jarr), but with a different distribution, as summarized in (4). (4) Names of short vowels in Farra' a. Syntactic b. Lexical raf damma or raf nasb fatha or nasb xafd kasra or xafd

Phonetic value u a i

Farra', unlike Sibawayh, uses both names indifferently for lexically determined vowels. For instance, describing the two variants (5a)

(5b)

fiy ummi l-kitaab in mother def-book "in the heart of the book" ffy immi l-kitaab (same meaning)

I:5.14

he says that the underlined vowel can be raf (= u) or kasra (= i). The alternation in the initial vowel of 'umm is purely morpho-phonologically determined (cf. 3.6.2.2 for background discussion), where he freely mixes terms from each "system". I have not made a complete study of the question, though an initial look at the data suggests that Farra' uses only the "syntactic" series (4a) to describe syntacticallydetermined short vowels, while mixing terms from both systems to describe the lexically-determined vowels. Thus, while Farra's terminology is not altogether different from Sibawayh's (cf. (3a) and (4a)), the fact that he mixes the terms in To which can be added Farra's treatment of kull "all" as a na't; see Q 30 in § 5.

160


some contexts (4b) indicates that he failed to consistently apply a distinction which Sibawayh recognized and took cognizance of. A second distinction more firmly drawn in Sibawayh than in Farra' concerns data discussed in n. 5 below. Sibawayh distinguished five sub-types of objects ( = mafuwl), the mafuwl bihi "direct object", mafuwl fiyhi "locative object", mafuwl ma'ahu "accompaniment object" (cf. § 4, (3)), mafuwl lahu "reason object" and mafuwl minhu "object from it". He often gives quite lucid structural descriptions for each category of object. The reason object, for instance, can take the definite article because "it is not a haal [which never takes the definite article]...nor is it of the class of verbal nouns which stand for a command [cf. § 4 (31)]..." (155.15). In Sibawayh's system, each position distinguished is done so for specific reasons. Farra', on the other hand, has virtually no explicitly developed categorization of objects, hardly ever using the categorical term mafuwl. For instance, while he implicitly notes distinctive properties of the accompaniment (I: 34.6) and reason (I: 17.11) objects, he does not identify them by any special name, and rather than identify the second object of di-transitive verbs by categorical name, he refers to the actual object token (II: 201.5).3 There is thus some evidence to indicate that Sibawayh had a more systematized grammatical framework than did Farra'. Any such conclusions drawn in this direction must, I should emphasize, be treated with caution; as I have already said, Sibawayh's Kitaab has quite a different object and purpose than does Farra's MQ, and there are respects in which Farra's system offers certain advantages over Sibawayh's (cf. §7 and example of taqriyb above). Moreover, as argued in chapter 3, Farra's general orientation falls within an Arabic structuralist tradition. Nonetheless, there are overall differences in the two systems, and, given a far more adequate comparison than offered here, it is in theory possible to compare and offer judgments on the relative adequacy of the two descriptions.

8.2 Are Terminological Differences Categorical Differences?

One of the oft-recognized types of differences between Basrans and Kufans, and indeed perhaps one of the first to be noted, are those of terminology. The following chart indicates a sample of such differences between Sibawayh, Farra' and later grammarians that have been or will be mentioned in the present work.

I have thus far only found one mention in Farra' of the mafuwl bihi as "object", I: 133.11. In I: 453.2 mafuwl bihi and faa'il refer to passive and active verb forms, a rather unusual usage.


(6) Sibawayh (a) 'amila "govern" (b) harf "one of the word classes" (c) haal

Farra' waqa'a 'adaah

161

Later grammarians 'amila harf

qať/haal haal (cf. 7.1.4) (d) darf "locative" sifa darf (e)munsarif 'fully maayajriy munsarif inflected noun" (cf. Ansari: 452) (f) badal "substitute" takriyr badal (g) fasl "separative 'imaad fasl pronoun" (h) şiraak /'atf 'atf/nasaq 'atf/nasaq "coordination" (i) tafsiyr tamyiyz "specifier" (cf. Ansari : 449) (j) tabi'a "agree" tabi'a (tawaabi' "concordants")

It is interesting to observe that in no instances where Sibawayh had an unambiguous term did later grammarians fail to adopt his rather than Farra's usage (6a-g). Where the two show partial overlap, as with the term for coordination, it is the shared term {'atf) which became more popular, and even when Sibawayh had no consistent term, as for the specifier and concordant it is not always Farra's which was necessarily adopted (cf. 6í).5

Popularly Farra' is said to have termed the grammatical class harf "'adaah". In fact he uses the term rather rarely (I: 58.17, II: 207.10, 235.9, 332.17, 396.9) and certainly does not clearly differentiate between 'adaah and the more general term for word class, harf (cf. Ap IB). The clearest use of 'adaah that I have found appears in the tenth century grammarian Abu Bakr al-Anbari (cf. 9.7.2), though Anbari (Alifaat 29, KMM 465) appears to accord well with Farra's usage. I think a number of terms were taken over from Sibawayh by default, without the later grammarians necessarily attempting to fully integrate the terminology into the later systems (cf. 11.6). For instance, from Sarraj on (I:159) a basic distinction was drawn between the true and pseudo objects (mafaa'iyl vs. musabbah bi l-maf'uwl). The latter included the haal, specifier, and exception ('isti0naa'), the former five types of objects (mafuwl bihi, mafuwl ma'hu, mafuwl lahu, mafuwlfiyhi, and mafuwl mutlaq). So far as I can tell (cf. Owens 1988 n. 211 for a mistaken attempt tofindstructural reasons for the distinction) there are no linguistic grounds for the distinction, and the grammarians themselves never defined the basis of the difference between the true and pseudo objects. I would suggest that the distinction is grounded in two points. First, with Mubarrid (cf. 6.2.5) all a-inf forms were explained in terms of 'objectiveness'. Secondly, later grammarians took over Sibawayh's terms, but to relate the a-inf form of the haal, specifier and exception to the generalization that all a-inf forms were objects, came up with the distinction between pseudo- and true objects. The true objects were simply those which Sibawayh had at one point or another termed "object" (cf. I: 11.1, 116.14, 155.12,125.11,165.5, cf. 7.2.5), while the pseudo-objects were other a-inf constituents. This explanation leaves a few points open. Sibawayh's mafuwl minhu for instance did not become one of the objects and the mafuwl mutlaq was never termed such by Sibawayh. I think though that it is on the right track in its emphasis on the relatively superficial transmission of the term mafuwl in

162


The implications of this situation for the history of Arabic grammar is discussed in chapter 11. Here it is relevant to ask the question whether or not this terminological heterogeneity, as exemplified by Sibawayh and Farra', reflects a conceptual one as well (cf. 5.5.1 for a similar problem). The answer appears to be partly 'yes' and partly 'no'. On the one hand Sibawayh's darf, for example, is different from Farra's sifa (7.2); on the other hand Farra's use of the 'isnaad complex for N-N possessive relations is equivalent to Sibawayh's 'idaafa, a term that indeed Farra' frequently uses (cf. 6.1.1). In the following I will give three more such examples, one in which Farra' is terminologically distinct from Sibawayh but conceptually similar (8.2.1) and two where his terminology and conceptualization are somewhat different from Sibawayh and other grammarians (8.2.2, 8.2.3). 8.2.1 Waqa'a, governance As I pointed out briefly in 6.2.2.1, in the vast majority of cases when Farra' speaks of governance he uses the term waqa'a (lit. "fall", 'iyqaa', wuquw', 'awqa'a, waqqa'a, yaqa'u, waaqi' etc.); the governor (or its action) "falls" on the governed item. Most often this pertains to one item, usually a verb, governing an a-inf complement; less often, though still consistently, it pertains to an i-inf complement; rather rarely it applies to an item governing a u-inf, as the following examples illustrate. In the following I translate waqa'a (and its derivates) by "govern". 8.2.1.1 a-inf (7)

'alladiy darab-tu 'ax-uw-ka who hit-I brother-u-yours "The one I hit is your brother". Here Farra' discusses the familiar point that a verb inside a relative clause cannot govern a noun outside the clause, a restriction phrased in terms of waqa'a. Q 73 'alladiy is in the position mawdi' of a u-inf [in a relation with] 'ax, so the verb (darabtu) does not govern (waqa'a) what precedes it [i.e. does not govern 'alladiy]. I: 139.3 (8a)

['ayy-u-hum yaqum-0]s fa drib which-u-them stands-0 so hit "Whichever of them stands up, hit"! (8b) ['idrib 'ayy-a-hum]s yaquwm-u I: 179.13 hit which-a-them stands-u "Hit whichever of them stands up". He says that "if you front the action of hitting (darb) you make it govern ('awqa'tahu 'alaa) 'ayyahum". In (8a) 'ayyuhum is in a dependent conditional sentence and so has no direct relation to the verb 'idrib; in (8b) it serves as DO to 'idrib, and so it is governed in a-inf by the verb, a relation described in terms of waqa'a. Interesting understanding the difference between true and pseudo-object (cf. Owens to appear a for further discussion).


163

here is the implication of direct physical action, the mechanical tone of governor affecting governed. If the verb, or more accurately the action of the verb, the verbal noun, is moved to initial position you "must make it fall, bring it down on" the object, and hence effect the a-inf form in it. I will return to this point at the end of 8.2.1. Q 74 If you find a noun before which is an utterance and after which a verb which governs (qad waqa'a 'alaa raaji'in dikrihi) a pronoun referential to the noun, then the noun can be in either u- or ainflection. I: 240.13 This describes the variable treatment of the preposed noun in sentences like (9)

wa zayd-un/zayd-an ra'ay-tu-hu and -u/ -a saw-I-him "and as for Zayd, I saw him". When the verb governs a resumptive pronoun (= -hu) both u-inf and a-inf are allowed in the fronted noun.6 This is discussed in greater detail in 8.2.3.3 below. It is noteworthy that the notion of waqa'a applies to a bilateral relationship irrespective of the form of the governed item, so that even if -hu in (9) is not overtly a-inf it is accommodated within the general category of governed items. (10)

'ixtaara muwsaa qawm-a-hu sab'iyna rajul-an chose moses people-a-his seventy man-a 395.2 "Moses chose (from) his people seventy men". (7/155) (11) 'ixtaara min-hum sab'iyna rajul-an from-them (10, 11) illustrate the point that if a preposition is deleted from a noun, the verb can govern it directly, "...and it is allowed for the verb to govern {waqa'a 'alaa) qawmahu if min [the preposition] is deleted" (cf. 6.2.2.1, Q 34 for further). Generally the a-inf governor is a verb, but nominals also may have the ability to govern, as in (12) § kifaan-an 'ahyaa'-an wa 'amwaat-an shroud-a living-a and dead-a (77/25) "as a shroud for the living and the dead" III: 224.4 where the governor is kifaanan.

This is what in later theory became known as the 'istigaal construction and what in Sibawayh falls under the general theme of a sabab relation (cf. Carter 1985a).

164


8.2.1.2 i-inf (13) maa 'anta bi qaa'im-in not you by standing "You are not standing". This is possible because "the bi can govern (waqďa 'alaa) a definite or indefinite noun in a negative construction" (I: 318.1). 8.2.1.3 Verbal governors Q 75 You know that the jussive or subjunctive [0- or a-inf] governors only govern (laa yaqa'aani 'illaa) verbs beginning with y-, t-, n-, or - [i.e. imperfective verbs]. I: 469.13 8.2.1.4 'Amala and waqa'a In all of the examples listed, as well as those cited in appendix IG, the more common term 'amal, favored by Sibawayh7 and all later grammarians, could equally have been used. Farra' does in fact use this term as well in the sense of "govern", though it is uncommon (e.g. I: 16.9, 139.3, 334.6, 422.3, 465.1, III: 56.13, 169.2, 338.3). In one place both terms appear. Discussing a reading with u-inf after kam (14) kam rajulun kariymun qad 'ataa-niy I: 169.2 how many man generous have come-me "How many generous men have come to me"? Farra' says "you have the verb ('ataaniy) govern (tu'milu) the noun when it is affecting/governing (waaqi'an) it". The use of 'amal and waqďa together suggests the possibility that the two were somehow distinctive concepts for Farra', that perhaps waqďa refers to a general idea of relation, 'amal to morphological government. Such a conclusion, however, would be contradicted by the obvious fact that otherwise Farra' overwhelmingly favors waqďa to describe the governance relation (cf. Ap IG), and that even where waqďa is not generally used (cf. below), neither is 'amal What can be said is that Farra' used two terms for governance, favoring his own waqďa over 'amal, and that in certain places a conceptual difference is hinted at but not coherently developed. That Farra's conception of governance was essentially a difference of terminology from Sibawayh's is further confirmed by his frequent use of words derived from the inflectional forms themselves to describe the governance relation. The following citations illustrate this point, without a detailed analysis of the relevant constructions being necessary.

Sibawayh also uses the term waqa'a and its derivates in a number of different ways, including for instance "future time" (lamyaqa', 1.3, 194.16), "occur in or at a position" (3.2, and cf. Versteegh 1978: 266-268). With one possible exception, however (cf. 8.2.3.3) it does not pertain directly to governance.


165

(15) u-inf §maa 'adraaka maa yawm-u l-diyn-i I:46.11 neg inform-you what day-u def-religion-i "Don't you even know what the day of religion is!" "You consider maa to be u-inf (rafďtahaa) (in a relation) with yawmu". For "govern in the u-inf' the verb related to raf "u-inf' is used. (16) a-inf 'ayyaam-an ma'duwdatin I: 112.2 days-a limited "limited days" "You make 'ayyaaman a-inf (nasabta) because in the passive construction if the nouns are different (i.e. not N + adj), then you make one of them u-inf {rafďta) and the other a-inf (nasabta)". (17) i-inf haadaa daaribun fiy l-daar-i 'axiy-hi II: 80.11 this hitting in def-house-i brother-his "This one is hitting his brother in the house" "If a prepositional phrase (sifa, cf. 7.2.2) occurs between an (AP) i-inf governor and the governed i-inf noun, the i-inf in the object ('axiyhi) is allowed (yuxfadu). A similar usage of verbs describing inflectional processes is frequently found in Sibawayh, as the following list, picked from a casual perusal of Sibawayh, indicates. rafďta, tarfa'u, rafďa: 31.20, 36.16/18, 53.3 nasaba/tansibu/nasabta: 13.15, 333.12, 34.20, 37.2, 51.6, 53.13, 53.17, 87.20 jarra, injarra: 177.10, 253.10 It should be noted that waqa'a for Farra' was not always applied to governance relations. Occasionally it means "occur", as when he notes that in sentences with verbal noun sentential complements, certain adjectives are placed (wuqi'a) in the position of modifier and can be inflected according to "meaning" rather than to form. (18)

a'jabtu min qiyaam-i-kum 'ajma'-uwna (*'ajma'-iyna) pleased getting up-i-your all-u (*i-inf) "I was pleased that all (u-inf) of you got up" (I: 324.10, also II: 338.4) Such additional usages of waqa'a do not, however, contradict the main point that for Farra' in the vast majority of cases it is a term designating a governance relation, with the context making clear which usage is intended.

166


One final remark is in order here. As I noted above, the notion of waqa'a for Farra' has a physical correlate, as is particularly clear when he describes the governance of transitive verbs. It has been argued by Levin (1979) that Sibawayh did not intend such a physical action when he describes the grammatical effect of verb on object. In Mubarrid (IV 2998) and later grammarians (cf. Owens 1988: 6.1.2) it is precisely in physical terms that transitivity is interpreted. Q 76 If you say darabtu zaydan "I hit Zayd" or kallamtu 'amran "I spoke to Amr" you don't affect (do) Zayd, but rather do a hitting or speaking and place ('awqa'ta) the blow on Zayd, or make the speech move to Amr. IV: 299 Not only is the idea of movement of an action, as represented by a verbal noun, the same as Farra's, but the very same term, 'awqa'ta "you placed" is used as well. It would be tempting to see Mubarriďs ideas here as deriving from Farra's, and indeed I think the idea of waqa'a as a physical action is so pervasive in Farra' that an influence can be assumed. In one instance, which will be discussed in 8.2.3.3, Sibawayh also consistently uses such terminology, however.9 8.2.2 Two types of pronouns 8.2.2.1 'Imaad and fasl Two definite nouns in a predicative relation are separated by a pronoun, conventionally termed the 'separative pronoun', which serves to signal the predicative nature of the construction. (19a)

zaydun huwa l-kabiyru zayd he def-big "Zayd is the big one". cf. b) zaydun l-kabiyr-u zayd def-big "the big Zayd" (non-predicative) Farra' termed this pronoun the 'imaad, and noted that it occurred after word classes represented by danna "think", kaana "be, become", and 'inna "indeed" (I: 409.6, II: 113.6,, 352.7, III: 299.11). The pronoun has no effect on the governance relations in the sentence - both topic and comment remain in the form they have when the pronoun is not present -- rather serving merely as a separative element between definite topic and comment.

And cf. Axfash 261.2 where two object complements are made a-inf form "by the action falling ('isqaat) on them". 9 The phrase nusiba bi wuquw' al-fi'l 'alayhi is not infrequent in Nahhas (e.g. II: 344, 410). It is interesting that even though Nahhas generally adopts a 'Basran' terminology, the 'Kufan' (Farra'an) tafsiyr tradition nonetheless intrudes in places almost, as it were, unconsciously.


(20a)

kaana zaydun was Zayd-u "Zayd was the big one".

huwa he

l-kabiyr-a def-big-a

(20b)

danna zayd-an huwa thought zayd-a he "He thought Zayd was the big one".

l-kabiyr-a def-big-a

(20c)

'inna zayd-an indeed zayd-a "Indeed Zayd is the big one".

l-kabiyr-u def-big-u

huwa he

167

The predicative element must be definite, or what resembles a definite noun, as in (21) kaana 'abdu llaahi huwa 'afdal-a min-ka10 was Abdulla he better than-you "Abdulla was better than you" Farra' considered it best for the predicate to occur with the definite article, so that (22)

?kaana

'abdu llaahi

huwa he

'ax-aa-ka brother-a-your

"Abdullah was your brother". was only marginally acceptable (II: 352.12). His argument here was that just as the pronoun serves as an 'imaad, support, to the first noun, so the definite article, alserves as support to the second (II: 352.13). So far as this aspect of Farra's work goes there is essentially no difference between Farra' on11one hand and on the other Sibawayh (§ 200, 201, I: 346.350), Mubarrid (IV: 104 ) and Sarraj (II: 125-126), except that the latter group uses the term fasl rather than 'imaad for the separative pronoun, and Sibawayh apparently does not have Farra's hesitation in accepting sentences like (22). The equivalence of Basran fasl = Kufan 'imaad is one of the oft-recognized hallmarks of Basran and Kufan terminology (e.g. Zam 133.9) and Sarraj (II: 125) approvingly gives Farra's explanation for the necessity of the pronoun, namely to distinguish a predicative from a modifying constituent (cf. (19a,b)). There is only one point to add here: Sibawayh recognized this construction only when a verbal governor (346.17) occurs (as in (20a,b)) and Axfash (357) apparently recognized a similar distribution. Farra' gives examples with a verbal governor or 'inna, but neither Farra', nor Sibawayh nor Axfash give examples with a simple topic-comment construction (like (19a)) and in this respect the two earlier grammarians stand opposed to Mubarrid (IV: 104) and Sarraj (II: 125) and later grammarians who generalized it to contexts like (14a) as well. 10 Definiteness is neutralized here, as the definite article a/- cannot occur, *al-'afdalu minka; cf. Sib 348.1. Mubarrid in his Muqtadab does not identify the pronoun by class name, however. Farra' in adding one more context where the separative pronoun can occur (after 'inna, (15c)) of course takes the classification a step closer to later theory. Zajjaj (I: 510), explicitly arguing against

168


8.2.2.2 'Imaad and the damiyr il-sa'n Farra', however, also applies the term 'imaad to another context, namely that where a third person singular pronoun occurs initially in dependent sentences, usually after words of the class of danna "think", kaana "be, become", or 'inna "indeed", introducing a nominal sentence (III: 299.11). top

(23a)

'inna -hu indeed-it/m "Indeed Zayd is big".

cf. b)

'inna

[

]com

[zayd-un [zayd-u

kabiyr-un]s big-u]s

zayd-an kabvyr-un -a (same meaning) According to the traditional, later analysis, in (23a) the pronoun takes the place of the topic and the predicate is an embedded nominal S, with the usual u-inf form in the topic and comment. This contrasts with (23b) where 'inna governs the two nouns zaydan and kabiyrun directly. The 3 m sg pronoun in (23a) is designated 'imaad by Farra', as are the two third person pronouns in (24) below. The pronoun is always third person singular, but can vary for gender according to conditions that I will not go into here. (24a)

'inna-hu jaariyat-u-ka faarihat-un indeed-it-m neighbor-u-your happy-u "Indeed your neighbor (f) is happy". (24b) 'inna-haa jaariyatuka faarihatun (= 24a) -it-f (I: 51.3,III: 185.3, 236.6, 299.11) The logic of Farm's common terminology for the pronouns in (19a, 20, 23a, 24) runs as follows. The 'imaad is a pronoun that has no structural status beyond that of highlighting two parts of the sentence, topic and comment, to neither of which it has a direct relation. This point can be seen in Farm's contrasting analysis of the following two sentences.

|

[

]s

(25a) maa 'adunnu rajul-an yakuwnu [huwa 'afdal-u not I think man-a be he better-u '1 don't think there is a better man than you".

= com min-ka]* thanyou

Sibawayh, holds that the fasl can also occur between topic and comment of a (non-embedded) nominal sentence.


(25b)

maa'adunnu rajul-an yakuwnu

huwa he

'afdal-a better-a

169 minka

(same meaning) The two examples are attested variants (cf. also Sib 348.7) and have two structural analyses according to Farra'. In (25a) 'afdalu takes u-inf as complement of huwa, and, it can be inferred, the bracketed S construction serves as embedded complement to yakuwnu. In (25b) 'afdala is a-inf governed directly by yakuwnu as its comment. However, in (25b) huwa serves only as an element separating two definite nominals; it is an 'imaad, and hence has no effect on the inflectional form of 'afdal, as it does in (25a) where it is not 'imaad. Farra' thus contrasts the function of a pronoun as 'imaad where it has no relation to the other nominals in the sentence, and no effect on inflectional form, and its function as a nominal (ism) where it does. Farra' explains it as follows: "the a-inf form [of 'afdal] is Qused [when huwa is] 'imaad, and the u-inf when it is a nominal (ism)" (II: 113.5). 77 The pronoun -hu/haa in (24) has the same status as that of huwa in that it has no relation to the nouns in the complement sentence, and hence Farra' puts it in the same class, 'imaad. For Farra' a pronoun is 'imaad when it has no direct relation to another nominal in a nominal S. Sibawayh distinguishes between the pronoun in sentences like (25b), terming it fasl (cf. above) and the pronoun in (24) which he termed the damiyr il-hadiyQ "pronoun which introduces a story" (i.e. the dependent nominal S, I: 27.1, 259.9). Except for Tha'lab, later grammatical theory maintained Sibawayh's distinguishing categorization. Thalab terms the pronoun in (24) al-majhuwl "the unknown" (i.e. signaling a new nominal S, 102, 231, 272, 386); he also uses the term 'imaad (133, 593), though so far as the one clear exemplification of this term goes (354) it is indistinguishable from the majhuwl. Ibn Kaysan basically uses Sibawayh's term, kinaayat al-hadiy0 for the pronoun in (24) (114) and Sarraj (I: 257) speaks of the haa suffix in (24) as al-majhuwl "the unknown" vs. the damiyr il-fasl for the pronoun in (25a) (II: 125)13 and similarly Zamaxshari (133) opposes the damiyr al-sa'n, or what he took to be the equivalent later terminology, damiyr al-majhuwla, to the damiyr al fasl (=25a). Nahhas (I: 190) in critically observing that Farra' allowed sentence initial pronouns to be of the category 'imaad specifically states that the Basrans correctly do not allow a sentence initial pronoun to be of the fasl class. Nahhas' criticism of Farra' shows the dangers of assuming a one-to-one correspondence between Basran and Kufan terms; a less normative analysis shows that Farra's 'imaad was not exactly equivalent to the Basran fasl.14 Both Farra' and the other grammarians are justified in their treatments and terminology. Farra', who has the most general conceptualization, focuses on the Mubarrid would appear to term the separative pronoun zaa'id "extra" (IV: 103. 104) though it is not altogether clear where this pronoun stands in relation to the damiyr al-sa'n. Sarraj elsewhere (I: 232) identifies the majhuwl as a Kufan term. He is perhaps referring to Tha'lab's usage. 14 On the other hand, it should be borne in mind that the 4 t h /10 t h century grammarians were not interested in earlier linguistic differences as historical artifacts, but rather used them to throw their own ideas into clearer relief (cf. §10, 11).

170


lack of relation between the pronoun and the rest of the sentence; the other grammarians could (no actual comparison was ever made so far as I know) point to a formal difference - the fasl for example is always an independent pronoun whereas the sa'n can be independent or bound. Distributional differences would also be relevant. The fasl, for example, always occurs in nominal sentences whereas the sa'n can occur followed by a verbal one (cf. Zam 133). 8.2.3 Predicates Farra' has a distinctive analysis of predicates which is reflected in different aspects of his analysis. I discuss three of them in this section. 8.2.3.1 Governor of topic and comment Anbari (no. 5, 40 ff.) devotes an entire chapter to one of the oft-cited differences between Basrans and Kufans, namely what the governor of topic and comment is (also Zajjaji 'Iydaah: 140). For Sibawayh, and this essentially became the standard view, a N-predicate relation, where predicate is either verbal or nonverbal, is analyzed as topic and comment, what he often, though not always terms mubtada'/'ibtidaa' + xabar (cf. e.g. 2, 3 in 6.1). This pair of terms, qua syntactic pair,15 is entirely absent in Farra'. For reasons discussed further in the next section, Farra' has a rather different conceptualization of this relationship, namely one in which the two elements mutually govern each other. All the examples relevant to mutual governance I have found have either nominal, prepositional or sentential (cf. 8.2.3.3) predicate, never verbal. Farra' has two formulations for the relation of predicate to u-inf subject. The more common one is simply to say that the first noun is made u-inf by the second (cf. Q 73). For example, in (26a)

'alladiy darab-tu 'ax-uw-ka who hit-I brother-u-your "The one whom I hit is your brother". I: 139.3 where 'alladiy is said to "be in the position of a u-inf noun by 'axuwka", or (26b) §wakull-u say'in fa'al-uw-hu fiy zuwr-in and all-u thing did-pl-it in falsehood-i (54/52) "And everything they did in falsehood". II: 96.1 where "kullu is made u-inf by fiy" (i.e. by the predicate, in this case a prepositional phrase; cf. also I: 46.11,110.12, 138.13, 179.1, 334.6, 373.1, 465.3, III: 59.8). One almost gets the impression that in Farm's theory (as in modern dependency grammar) it is the predicate which is the sole governor. Under this hypothesis a potential counterexample like 15

Xabar is used inter alia in the sense of predicate (e.g. I: 276.3, 310.9, 389.5, 470.14, II: 98.11, 165.4, 234.13, 3338.4, III: 226.10). Mubtada'/ 'ibtidaa' however, so far as I know only has the sense of "initial position" without further categorical status.

171


'an taquwm-a fiy-hi fiy-hi rijaa-un I:452.7 that stand-a in-it in-it men-u "That you stand up in it, where there are men" where the second fiyhi "makes rijaalun nominative", is perhaps explained by the (implicit) inversion of an indefinite topic and locative predicate (cf. Ibn Jinni Xas I: 317). One could further point to Farra's analysis of (27)

(28)

maa 'adriy man qaama neg know who stood up "I don't know who stood up". I: 352.9 where man is said to be governed in (implicit) u-inf form by the verb qaama (i.e. is the agent). Despite the N-verb sequence, no topic-comment structure is alluded to, simply a verbal governor. However, Farra' does have another locution for this construction, where the second nominal "makes the first nominative", where the predicate used is yuraafi'u (I: 13.1, 179.1) a reciprocal verb form suggesting the idea of mutual governance. Secondly, moreover, there are at least three clear instances where the first noun is said to govern the second. §haadaa yawm-u yanfa'u l-saadiqiyna I:326.13 this day-u benefits def-believers (5/119) "This is a day which will benefit the believers". Yawmu is made u-inf by the noun haadaa (also I: 13.1, III: 299.11).16 It is thus probably fair to conclude that Farra' did have in mind a mutual governance of subject and predicate, at least where the predicate was not a morphological verb. (29)

Farra's mutual governance terminology is all but ignored by other grammarians (see 9.7.2 for one exception). It is interesting to observe that in four instances (cf. Talmon 1988: 85), one analogous in fact to (29) which is also cited by Sibawayh (409.7), Sibawayh uses precisely the mutual governance terminology.17 (30) kaana daaka zaman-a zayd-un was that time-a Zayd-u "That was the time Zayd was prince".

'amiyr-un prince-u

409.19

16 There are further contexts where the predicate is said to be made u-inf by a covert (topic) pro form, e.g. I: 93.2. 1 See 99.16, 176.7; Sibawayh also uses the mutual governance terminology in the context of conditional clauses, 394.15. Otherwise he appears to hold the view that the topic is the governor of the comment.

172


Q 78 When zaman has the meaning of 'id "when", it is possessed by what mutually governs [i.e. zaydun 'amiyrun, top + com are mutual governors] 409.20 It is undoubtedly significant that Sibawayh is here citing the opinion of his teacher Xalil(cf. 11.6). 8.2.3.2 Fi'l, predicate Farra's views on governance relations in nominal sentences are closely linked to his views on predication in general. As Talmon (1987) has pointed out, Farra' operates with a category predicate, = fi'l, pl 'afaa'iyl (sometimes = xabar) which includes a diverse set of morphological word classes occurring in various functions. For example 'asad in 'inna-haa 'asad-un jaariyat-u-ka I:362.4 indeed-she lion-u neighbor-u-your "Indeed your neighbor (f) is a lion(ess)". is termed a predicate (fi'l), where this must be understood as predicate of the nominal sentence embedded as complement of 'innahaa, and the verbal noun darbiy in (31a)

(31b)

qad nadim-tu 'alaa has regretted on "I regretted my having hit you". is similarly termed a fi'l.

darb-iy hitting-my

'iyyaa-ka you

II: 71.3

The following is a non-exhaustive summary of the word classes and functions which Farra' terms fi'l, using as the basis of the categorization the later standard analysis. (32) A) predicate of nominal S i) simple, non-verbal predicate: I: 13.6 = 169.11fi'l= 317.7 334.6 372.4 II: 43,7 80.1 347.2 ii) any sort of predicate, I: 409.8

N maxuwfun "fearsome" N 'ind "at" AP raaji' "returning" AP xaarij "leaving" AP qaa 'il "saying" AP saami' "hearing" AP AP (predicate of relative clause)


173

iii) complement of 'inna "indeed" I:362.4 = N 'asad "lion" or jaariya "neighbor f 471.4 any predicate iv) complement of various verbs that take S complements II: 277.13 = pred compofzaala "remain" I: 51.9 any sort of pred (verbal or non -verbal) after kaana "be" II: 352.16 AP pred comp of kaana II: 264.7 N as pred in dependent comp S of ra'aa "see" II: 423.15 any sort of pred in dependent comp of ra'aa B) Morphological verb as predicate: I: 206.3, 273.8, 297.6, 426.2, 445.6, 465.3 C) haal: I: 13.10 (?), II: 273.8, III: 279.12 D) Verbal noun: I: 45.10, 335.14 II: 71.3 (cf. (31b)) III: 171.1 E) in taqriyb: I: 13.14 F) Direct object: I: 286.14 G) Idiomatic predicates (maa laka/maa sa'nuka "what's it to you"): I: 281.2 H) sawaa' "except" III: 47.8 Far more than any other linguist, Farra' thus operates with a general syntactic-semantic category of predicate, encompasing not only main predicate of a sentence (32A, B), including idiomatic predicates (32G, cf. Talmon 1986: 151), but also nominalized predicates (32D) and what might be termed descriptive predicates (32C). His designation of a direct object in at least one instance (32F) requires further clarification. His analysis of the nominal sentence, without independent topic and comment positions, should thus be understood in conjunction with his use of the category predicate, fi'l. So long as it stands for a syntactic-semantic category, it would, presumably, have been unavailable as the designator of a morphological class, as for instance with Sibawayh. This in turn would mean that no distinction between nominal and verbal sentences would have been possible, since this dichotomy rests in part on the opposition between verbs and nominals, considered as morphological entities. Of course nothing in principle would have prevented Farra' from drawing a distinction between nominal and verbal sentences with other terms, or with the ambiguous application of his extant linguistic vocabulary, though he apparently did not do this. Establishing why he did not is a question left for further research.

174


As mentioned, Farra' is the only linguist among those surveyed to have hinted at a general category of predicate, though his ideas are not altogether without echo elsewhere. For instance (33a)

qaama zayd-un "Zayd got up"

and (33b)

zaydun qaama "Zayd got up".

have the same meaning yet different grammatical structures, V-Ag in (33a) vs. Top-Com in (33b). Both Mubarrid (IV: 128) and Anbari {Asraar: 83) consider the possibility whether zaydun in (33b) should not also be agent, but reject such an analysis for structural reasons. Sentences like (33a/b) are analyzed with no categorical distinction in Nahhas (Omar 1987: 6), and it will be seen in 9.3.2.7 for Ibn Kaysan and 9.4.2.2 for Lughda that in other 3 rd /9 th century linguists N-V and V-N order are not sharply distinguished as nominal vs. verbal sentence types. Even with the firm establishment of a topic-comment sentence structure one can detect a Farra'an orientation in the classification of the sentence parts, for the musnad comes to stand for 'predicate', independent of the sequence of items, a fi'l in Farra's sense (cf. §6 e.g (2, 3), Levin 1981: 151 ff.). Furthermore the informal designation of the haal as a xabar "predicate" is found in linguists from Sibawayh (e.g. 184.4, 206.5, 233.8, 247.8 etc.) to Jurjani {Tjaaz: 133) and beyond, though it is not given categorical status as predicate. 8.2.3.3 Sentential predicates A sub-type of topic-comment construction concerns cases where the item in predicate position is a complete sentence, as in (34)

'abd-u llaahi 'idrib-hu Sib 58.12 Top Com Abd-u llahi hit-him "As for Abdullah, hit him"! Allowing for a certain variation in terminology (cf. Levin 1985), Sibawayh's analysis and that of later grammarians (e.g. Mubarrid IV: 128, Sarraj I: 61, II: 61, cf. 4.3.1) is as indicated in (34), with a u-inf noun in topic position, a sentence, in this case an imperative verb, in comment position. The comment obligatorily contains a pronoun co-referential with the topic noun. An alternative construction has the initial noun in a-inf form. (35a)

zayd-an 'idrib-hu Sib 61.7 zayd-a hit-him "Zayd, hit him"! In Sibawayh the a-inf form is explained on the assumption that there is an ellipted verb governing the pre-posed a-mf noun. His reasoning is that since the main verb


175

already governs an object complement pronoun — at one point he uses the term sagala to describe this relation (61.7, cf. Ap ID) - the a-inf form of zaydan must be accounted for by the implicit presence of a different verbal governor, hence (35b) ('idrib) zayd-an 'idrib-hu (hit) zayd-a hit-him This construction conventionally became known as the 'istigaal (e.g. Zajjaji Jumal: 39; cf. Carter 1985a: 63, Owens 1988: 188) Earlier in this chapter (8.2.1.4, cf. Q 76) I noted that the term waqa'a came to characterize the verb-direct object relation, the verb being said to "put" an action (fi'l) on an object. In one instance, precisely where Sibawayh discusses sentential comments and the 'istigaal construction, he uses similar terminology. Explaining for example the two sentences no semantic relation, no sabab yuwqi'u fi'l-an (36a)

'a 'abd-u llaahi daraba 'ax-uw-hu Q Abdullah-u hit brother-u-his "As for Abdullah, did his brother hit Zayd"?

zayd-an zayd-a

42.13

semantic relation, sabab |

yuwqi'u fi'lan

(36b) 'a 'abd-u llahi daraba 'ax-uw-hu Q Abdullah hit brother-u-his "As for Abdullah, did his brother hit his boy"? he says

gulaam-a-hu boy-a-his

42.14

Q 79 It can happen that there can be placed an action (al-fi'l) on what [i.e. the boldface noun gulaamahu] is semantically related [to the underlined topic noun in (36b)] just as it can happen that it [the action] can be placed on what [i.e. the boldface noun zaydan, 36a] is not semantically related to it [underlined topic in (36a)]. 42.13 The issue is the relation between the form of the (underlined) topic noun and the distribution of the following resumptive pronoun, a relation termed sabab by Sibawayh (Carter 1985a, whose translation "semantically related" I follow). Without going into the details of this analysis, what is noteworthy is that in both examples Sibawayh explains that the boldface object noun has an action (fi'l)

176


placed (waqa'a) on it.18 Such terminology, also used in 40.1, 42.1, and 42.17, would provide a link between Farra's use of waqa'a = govern and Sibawayh's consistent use of 'amal for govern (cf. 8.2.1) in that in Sibawayh one class of governed items, namely objects, can be said to have an action placed on them.19 Operating without the topic-comment distinction, Farra's analysis is different, though it follows from his analysis of nominal sentences sketched in 8.2.3.1. In sentences like (36) (37)

$al-zaaniyat-u wa 1-zaaniy-u [fa jlid-uw kull-a def-adulteress-u and def-adulterer-u so whip-pl each-a waahidin min-humaa] II: 244.9 (24/1) one from-them/2 "As for the adulteress and adulterer, whip both of them". fa jliduw kulla waahidin minhumaa = maa 'aad min dikrihimaa The boldface u-inf nouns are said to be "put in the u-inf by what contains a reference to them".20 That is, the predicate, the constituent containing the coreferential pronoun, -humaa in this example, accounts for the u-inf noun just as it was seen to in (26) above. "Bi maa 'aada (or raja'a) min dikrihaa", "by what repeats it" is Farra's consistent designation of the process by which u-inf 'topics' of sentential complements are given their case form (I: 151.4, 240.15, 306.9, II: 26.9, 255.7, III: 9.10). In the case of the a-inf complement Farra's explanation is also apparently different. Rather than assume an ellipted verb in (38)

'a zayd-an darab-ta-hu Q zayd-a hit-you-him "Zayd, did you hit him"? I: 306.10 Farra' would seem to consider the verb itself to be the governor of zaydan, in effect allowing it to govern two objects, the pronoun suffix -hu and the pre-posed noun. Again for such cases he uses a consistent terminology, though one slightly different from the previous one: "the verb governs (waqa'a) a pronoun referring to the [fronted a-inf] noun", waqa'a l-fi'l 'alaa 'aa'id/raaji'dikrihi, (I: 240.13, 306.9, 376.7, II: Sometimes Sibawayh says "you" placed an action on an object, 'awqa'ta, 42.1, sometimes he uses an impersonal third person subject yuwqi'u/muwqťuri), as in Q 79. Also, in darabtu wa darabaniy zaydun "I hit (Zayd) and Zayd hit me" (28.18) the verb darabtu is said to waqa'a, i.e. "govern a direct object, be transitive", though the occurrence of zaydun as agent precludes its occurrence in the typical a-inf form. However, I do not think these citations resolve the question whether Sibawayh understood by 'amal a physical or grammatical (cf. Levin 1981) action. On the one hand, supporting Levin, is the fact that Sibawayh does not use the waqa'a terminology when he defines verb transitivity (p. 10 ff.). On the other, waqa'a is in chapter 29 (41-45, also 28.18, see n. 18) applied only to the placement of an action, fi'l, on an object noun. Anbari (Insaaf: 49) interprets the resumptive pronoun itself as being the governor. Farra's terminology appears in such later writers as Zamaxshari (24) in the formulation "a sentence (jumla) occurring as comment containing a resumptive pronoun" (la budda py jumlatin waaqi'atin xabran min dikrin yarji'u 'ilaa l-mubtada').


177

255.16). This at least is the interpretation reported in the subsequent literature (e.g. Anbari no. 12 p. 82, Astarabadhi I: 167) and there is nothing in Farra' to contradict such an interpretation. He does not, however, argue his case with great explicitness.21 In this section was seen how Farra' operated within a theoretical framework different from Sibawayh's. In giving paramount importance to the category 'predicate', fi'l (8.2.3.2) he necessarily works without a topic-comment distinction (8.2.3.1). Particular sub-types of such constructions, like those with sentential predicates, have analyses compatible with his overall model.

8.3 Summary

There should be no doubt that Farm's grammatical thinking was distinctive in many respects. He was quicker (in his Mďaaniy at least) to mention semantic explanatory factors than was Sibawayh; he was less prone than Sibawayh was to constructing and reinterpreting texts in order to regularize the data to conform to pre-set theory (see e.g. (1) above), and his terminology and corresponding classifications were often different. These differences sometimes amounted to little more than notational variation (8.2.1) but sometimes reflected conceptual divergence (8.2.2, 8.2.3). The latter characteristic is of significance in our reconstruction of the linguistic milieu in the 3 rd /9 th century, for it indicates a lack of standardization in the descriptive apparatus. Within the limits set by general arameters (e.g. a dependency-based grammar, cf. §2) nd there was a great deal more eterogeneity in the core grammatical system of the 2 /8 th , 3 rd /9 th centuries than there was in later ones. This point will be further substantiated in the following three chapters.

E

As Baalbaki (1981:16) notes, Farra' and Sibawayh differ slightly on the conditions where sentences like (38) can be used.

IX MINOR WRITERS

For a number of reasons the interpretation of the Arabic grammatical tradition in the 3 rd /9 th century has been dominated in the West at least by the views of two linguists, Sibawayh and Mubarrid. The prime reason for this is the simple fact that only comprehensive grammars from these two grammarians survive. Beyond that, however, I suspect that inherited prejudices, first articulated by the Arabs themselves (cf. §10), served to dampen interest in other writers, for if size of work alone were criterial, then Farra' would surely have received more attention than what he has to date. As soon as Farra' is given individual scrutiny, however,1 it becomes clear that grammatical studies were considerably more diverse and variegated than might otherwise be assumed. Given this situation, the work of lesser known 2 nd /8 th , 3 rd /9 th century linguists takes on a greater interest, for analysis of their work will help indicate to what extent linguistics in this era gravitated around either of the Sibawayh or Farra' poles, or, alternatively, existed in independent fields. Using as an initial basis the analysis of Sibawayh and Farra' already given, it is the aim of this chapter to place the work of four 'minor' linguists (cf. 1.4.2) in a larger historical context. It can be noted here in passing that Ibn al-Nadim (115 ff.) did recognize that a simple Basran/Kufan dichotomy did not provide an adequate classificatory framework for his linguistic predecessors, including in his Fihrist a chapter on linguists whose approaches contained elements from both schools (Troupeau 1962: 399). Significantly, this chapter contains the names of one and perhaps two of the linguists treated in the present chapter, Ibn Kaysan and possibly (cf. 9.1 below) Ibn al-Shuqayyir. This schema did not enjoy any lasting popularity, and indeed Ibn alNadim's contemporary Zubaydi includes Ibn Kaysan among the Kufans (Tabaqaat: 153). Moreover, Ibn al-Nadim offers no specific linguistic rationale for distinguishing the third class.

9.1 The Linguists I will examine four short but complete works, Muqqadima fiy l-Nahw ( = MAO, Lughda's (311/923) Kitaab al-Nahw, Ibn Kaysan's (299/911 or 320/932), AlMuwaffaqiy fiy l-Nahw and the Kitaab al-Jumal fiy l-Nahw (= KJN). The authorial

Such as he is increasingly receiving, as at the 1987 Nijmegen conference on the history of Arabic grammar.

180

MINOR WRITERS

attribution for the first and last works is problematic. The MN has been attributed to Xalaf al-Ahmar (180/796), a point accepted by at least some modern observers (Belguedj 1973: 176). Ahmar's editor, Tannuxi, notes that there were two contemporary grammarians named Ahmar, one a Basran (Xalaf) the other a Kufan ('Ali). The editor concludes (11-14) that the author of the MN is the Basran. The question of identity and 'school' affiliation is a significant one, though lacking more than one work attributed to either author, and given the problematic status of the Kufan and Basran schools in the very earliest period, the significance of such appelations is rather limited. There are, moreover, other problems. If Xalaf al-Ahmar was a contemporary of Sibawayh, his book would count as one of the two oldest works on Arabic. However, according to Ibn al-Nadim (74) and Suyuti (I: 554) Xalaf al-Ahmar was an expert in poetry, not grammar, with no grammatical works attributed to him. While the attnbution of tne MN to Ahmar must remain controversial at best, I think there is little doubt that the work itself stems either from the earliest period of Arabic grammar, prior to 850 (cf. 9.8, 9.10) or from a later writer who was cut off from the main stream of grammatical thinking. The latter alternative I think unlikely, for it would be more likely for such a work to be forgotten altogether than to have survived. Indeed, one point arguing for its attribution to Ahmar is that despite its unsophisticated style (cf. 9.2) it did survive; perhaps its historical importance as one of the two earliest grammars guaranteed this, for its pedagogical value would soon have been surpassed by better books, while its theoretical value was virtually non-existent. The KJN is officially, that is on the title page, attributed to Sibawayh's teacher Xalil, the editor no doubt realizing the relatively great attention a work by Xalil would command. Nonetheless, the editor shows fairly convincingly (Introduction 814) that it is not Xalil's KJN, but rather perhaps that of the Baghdadian Abu Bakr ibn al-Shuqayyir (318/930). From internal evidence (cf. 9.5, 9.9) the latter date is much more realistic, and I would provisionally accept Shuqayyir as its author. Ibn Kaysan is a contemporary either of Mubarrid (a dating I tend to favor) or Sarraj; the difference is important for he made a number of generalizations which otherwise would first be attributed to other linguists (cf. 9.3). However, I do not know which date is thcorrect, and all that can be said about his ideas is that they belong to the later 9 /early 10th centuries, with greater precision impossible. The aim of all four works is pedagogical. This is stated explicitly in the MN (cf. Iványi 1987) Q 80 When I realized that all the grammarians used long and overinvolved explanations, without regard to what learners of the grammar need in terms of a concise summary...I composed this book about the foundations of grammar, the particles and the governors ('awaamil) based on basic principles so that learners have a concise manual. 33,34

Similarly, Ibn Kaysan (103) states that his intention is to write a concise grammar of Arabic, as requested of him by one Abu Ahmad al-Muwaffaq (hence the title of his work).

181 In general all of the works are written in a simple style, and with the exception sometimes of the KJN, each topic is exemplified by simple examples. Nonetheless, the early provenance of the works is betrayed by their relatively unorganized nature, compared to Sarraj (Owens 1988: §1.8). Lughda, for instance, shifts back and forth between syntax (235 column 1) and morphology (231-234, 235 column 2), Ibn Kaysan divides an exposition of the morphological property of nouns (112, 113, 115) with a discussion of copular sentences (113, 114), and the KJN invokes a huge number of individual grammatical categories to account for the various constructions of Arabic, with virtually no attempt to state any general similarities among them. ARABIC GRAMMAR: THE ERA OF HETEROGENEITY

In the following I will discuss the authors separately (9.2-9.6), for each cataloguing the features that link them to Sibawayh, Farm', or neither. I use the grammatical points discussed in previous chapters, though other relevant data is also adduced. The list of features is not exhaustive, and it may be that I have biased my selection towards less standard features, those generally not found in the standard Basran canon. Further research may correct any such tendencies, though the present classification provides an initial framework for defining the problem. Furthermore, to the extent that it overvalues unusual features in all four works equally, there is one fixed standard (or better, one 'non-standard') by which the works are compared, namely the occurrence of non-standard features. It does not provide a comprehensive account of 'standard' (= later Basran) features, nor a complete catalogue of Sibawayhian features, though enough are included to give an idea of the general orientation of the works. In 9.7 I briefly discuss the terminological orientation of Tha'lab and his student Abu Bakr al-'Anbari, from whose works I have found too little information for a fuller comparison with other linguists treated in this chapter. In 9.8 and 9.9 I summarize the previous subsections. In 9.10 I consider briefly problems in using internal textual evidence in dating the provenance of grammatical works.

92 MN Before beginning the comparison a few general remarks about the MN are in order. The grammar is quite short, organized around the idea of inflectional form. First, the governors of each form, then the functions the case forms assume are consecutively given. The u-inf for example has six functions (wujuwh), agent, passive agent, topic, comment, complement of kaana "be", and complement of 'inna "indeed" (54). Verbs and nouns are treated separately. The overall plan, though simple, runs into problems in two ways. First it is not clear that the categorization has been completely thought through. Neither the vocative (la)

yaa zayd-u o zayd-u nor the 'tahqiyq'

(74)

182

MINOR WRITERS

(lb)

maa jaa'aniy 'illaa zayd-un (80) neg came me except Zayd "No one came to me except Zayd". for example are among the list of u-inf forms (54) though they are described as uinf in form (marfuw') when they are individually discussed (74). Similar problems attend the a-inf form. Secondly, when it finishes the basic nominal functions and their governors and moves on to other topics, the inclusion of material becomes somewhat haphazard and arbitrary. The author discusses, for no apparent reason, properties of mundu and mud "since" (83, 84), kam "how many", and rubba "oh how!" (99) and conjunctions (85), though nowhere does the MN have, for example, a complete list of negation or interrogative markers. It is as if once it has to depart from the basic descriptive skeleton provided by inflectional form, 'i'raab, it does not know how to go about organizing the data.2 9.2.1 Sibawayh 1. The MN uses the same word classification as Sibawayh, the particles, as in Sibawayh, being "particles that have a meaning" (35). As mentioned in 7.2.2, Farra's theory of word class is not clearly articulated. 2. It operates with a topic-comment sentence structure for nominal sentences, a treatment associated with Sibawayh (cf. 8.2.3.1). 3. It discusses the a-inf form after fa, as in (2) yaa laytaniy kun-tu ma'a-ka fa-andur-a 'inabaka if only-I was-I with-you and-see-a grapes-your" "If only I had been with you and seen your grapes". (69) in the chapter for the subjunctive particle 'an. While it does not, like Sibawayh (cf. 8.1 e.g. (1)) explicitly mention that in (2) there is an ellipted 'an governing 'andura, the suggestion that it does so is implicitly present. No mention is made of Farra's term sarf. 4. It calls partially inflected nouns maa laa yansarifu (87) rather than using Farra's term maa laa yajriy (e.g. MQ I: 346.1, 428.7, 429.2, Sib II: l). 3 5. It paraphrases interrogative kam with min "from" {kam rajulan = kam min rijaalin, "how many from men" 99), as does Sibawayh (251.10). 6. The pronouns 'anaa "I", nahnu "we", 'anta "you", 'antumaa "you dual", huwa "he", hum "they m", humaa "they-2", and hunna "they f" are listed among the demonstratives (huruwf il-'isaara, 65). In one place (218.6) Sibawayh has a similar The rather loose overall organization of the MN appears also to be a characteristic of Farra's Huduwd, at least so far as can be discerned from Ibn al-Nadim's (100) summary of chapter headings of that work. The dependent markers 'anna and 'inna for example are separated from each other by 16 chapters; inflectional form ('i'raab) is apparently dealt with at the very beginning as well as very near the end, and so on. 3 It is reported that a chapter in the Huduwd is entitled maa yajriy wa maa laayajriy.


183

listing, though in general Sibawayh distinguishes between the mubhamaat "demonstratives" and mudmaraat "pronouns". 7. The predicate in the nominal sentence after 'inna "indeed" is said to depend on 'inna (55), as in Sibawayh (241.10). For Farra' 'inna apparently did not govern the comment (I: 311.1, cf. Baalbaki 1981:17). 9.2.2 Farra' 1. More similar to Farra' than to Sibawayh, its term for word is only harf (cf. Ap IB). 2. The words that govern an i-inf complement correspond to a large degree with Farra's class of sifa (cf. 7.2.2), that is both prepositions (bi, li) and adverbials (xalfa "behind", tahta "below"). On the other hand, this class in the MN also includes elatives (e.g. 'adraf "kinder") and words that typically occur possessed, like mi0l "like" and gayr "except" (43-47), neither type of which belongs to Farra's sifa ( = locative), I believe. Sibawayh's term darf appears nowhere. 3. The passive (51) is designated maa lam yusammafaa'iluhu (cf. 7.3.2). 4. It mentions in one example (56) that an object is "made a-inf form by the placement {wuquw') of the verb on it"; this is Farra's terminology (8.2.1). 'Amal appears nowhere (cf. 8.2.1). 5. The designation of i-inf form is xafd as in Farra' ( = Sibawayh's jarr). 6. In one place (69) the negative is called jahd, Farra's usual term ( = Sibawayh's nafy, cf. Ansari 1964: 442), though Farra' rather rarely also has nafy (e.g. II: 43.9). 7. Conjunctions are huruwf al-nasaq (85), as in Farra' (cf. 5.5.2). 8. In one place (66) tabVa is used as "agree in inflectional form" (cf. 5.5.4). 9. Imperative verbs are said to be majzuwm "governed in the 0-form" (48). Traditionally it was the Kufans who are said to have held that the imperative verb is governed (Farra' I: 476.5), the Basrans that it is uninflected (mabniy, cf. Mub II:

3)?

One point that links the MN to both Sibawayh and Farra' is its referring to the complement of numerals 11-99 ('isruwnadirhaman) as "al-waahid il-xaarij min iljamaa'a", with the notion of exclusion (xaarij) to designate what would become the specifier (cf. 7.1). like Farra' and Sibawayh there is no mention of the term tamyiyz.

Though it can be asked whether majzuwm here means "governed in the 0-form" or simply a designation of the 0-form verb. Farra', for instance, uses marfuw* to mean either the inflectional vowel -u or any stem final -u (see 8.1).

184

MINOR WRITERS

9.2.3 Unique There are a number of aspects of the MAT, some theoretical points, some stylistic devices, that are found neither in Farra' nor Sibawayh so far as I have found. 1. It speaks of the words that govern an u-inf nominal (36); these are words that occur sentence initially, often before a u-inf noun, and include inter alia question words hal "yes-no?", kayfa "how", 'ayna "where", emphasis5 particles like 'innamaa, independent pronouns (huwa) and demonstratives (daalika). Q 81 2. It describes transitive verbs as "words that govern what follows in the a-inf', and gives examples like the following, which for convenience I have parsed according to Sarraj's analysis (the MN does not analyze them). (3a)

(3b)

ra'aytu

'abd-a llaahi l-dariyf-a Obj na't saw-I Abdullah def-nice-a "I saw the nice Abdullah riding". danantu 'ind-a-ka l-sariyf-a darf Obj thought at-a-you def-noble-a "I thought that the noble was riding at yours"

raakib-an haal riding raakib-an 2 Obj/(or haal) riding

The MN does not clearly distinguish between the different functions which the ainf forms realize; neither raakiban in (3a) nor 'indaka in (3b) are objects, though from the description given the reader could well conclude that they are in fact types of transitive objects. The impression is again reinforced that the overall analysis is not well thought out. 3. There are two categories for the 'haat, one with the a-inf noun occurring after a demonstrative (= xabar il-ma'rifa, (4a)) and one with verbs (= haal, (4b)); no common category is given. (4a)

haadaa 'abdu llaahi this Abdullah "Here is Abdullah approaching".

muqbil-an approaching

(57)

(4b) aamanuw fiy l-hayaati l-dunyaa xaalisat-an believe-pl in def-life def-world completely "They believed in their temporal life completely". (59) It may be noted that Sibawayh (218 §117) also speaks of (4a) as a xabar l-ma'rifa, though only as a sub-class of haal.

Sibawayh (e.g. 408.7) notes that Q particles like hal and kayfa are customarily followed by a verb, but does not relate this to the form of the verb; hallaa "why not" (364.6) he notes only occurs with a verb in initial position, though specifically mentions that it is not to be considered a governor, perhaps in implicit criticism of those who may have held so.

185 4. Describing 'inna and kaana the MN refers to the governance effect on both noun and adjective together (62, 64). 'Inna for instance "governs nouns and adjectives in the a-inf and comment in the u-inf'. ARABIC GRAMMAR: THE ERA OF HETEROGENEITY

5. Nouns and pronouns are called collectively huruwf il-'isaara, the traditional term for demonstratives, and are termed "u-inf words" (65), an implicit reference to the fact that they often occur in topic position and hence govern an u-inf comment. 6. Only five conjunctions are listed, wa- "and", fa "and then", 'aw "or", laa "not", Gumma "then" (85). 7. One interesting observation pertains to "words that require an agent" (67) as opposed to "those that require an object" (68). What is meant here are pairs like sarra "please"-karaha "hate", (5a)

sarra zayd-an huduwr-u-ka please zayd-a presence-u-your "Your attendance pleased Zayd". vs. (5b) karaha 'amrun huduwr-a-ka hated Amr presence-a-your "Amr hated your presence". where object and subject {huduwr) change position according to the verb chosen (cf. Postal's psyche-movement verbs).

9.3 Ibn Kaysan Ibn Kaysan's short grammar of 18 pages shows a number of points which, assuming the earlier of his two possible dates, are quite original. For example, he proposes the generalization that all a-inf nominals are interpreted as objects (110, cf. 6.2.4) and distinguishes the concordants (tawaab') as a class (cf. 5.1, 5.7). As with the MN he organizes his grammar around inflectional form, defining the form and various functions of each form (106-108, 110); at the same time he treats other topics as well, including a classification of sentence types (indicative, interrogative, vocative, etc. (109)), and an overview of morphological properties of nouns and verbs (113, 115, 119, 120). He has a good summary of the various types of copular sentences (113-114). 9.3.1 Sibawayh 1. Three parts of speech: noun, verb, particle (106), fi'l has only the sense of morphological verb (e.g. 115). 2. haal and darf (1110, 115) are used, though darf designates only place locatives; time locatives are termed waqt "time".

186

MINOR WRITERS

3. Ibn Kaysan speaks of the loam al-'idaafa (110) and notes the resemblance between the possessive construction and li- (122, cf. 4.2). His tri-partite division of genitive governors as noun, locative and particle closely parallels Sibawayh's (cf. 7.2.1) except that the nominal governors are exemplified by a lexically restricted set like kull "all" and gayr "except" that typically occur possessed (this last point reminiscent of 9.2.2.2). 4. He distinguishes topic and comment (113) and notes that 'inna (and its class) governs topic and comment. 5. He distinguishes the tawaabi' concordants as a class (111) with four members ('atf al-bayaan is left out) and like Sibawayh has a special class for the emphasizers, tawkiyd.6 The term badal is used (cf. 5.1, 5.2.5). 6. Partially inflected nouns are gayrmunsarif (112). 9.3.2 Farm' 1. Verbs are in the a-form by the principle of sarf (108, vs. Carter 1973b: 298). 2. The passive is maa lam yusamma faa'iluhu (109). 3. Pronoun is termed kinaaya (112); Sibawayh's term damiyr is not used (cf. Ansari 1964: 450). 4. Negative is jahd (114, 120, 122, 123), i-inf is xafd. 5. The imperative verb is majzuwm (117, cf. 9.2.2.9). 6. Ibn Kaysan calls laa a nasaq particle (111, 121). 7. Although Ibn Kaysan clearly distinguishes topic and comment, when he describes the alternatives (6a)

qaama zayd-un (6b) zaydun qaama (123) got up zayd-u zayd-u got up "Zayd got up". "Zayd got up" he speaks of the preposing (taqdiym) and postposing (ta'xiyr) of the predicate (xabar) qaama. "Predicate" is given a status independent of sequence in a way reminiscent of Farra's fi'l (cf. 8.2.3.2). 9.3.3 Both Sibawayh and Farra' (7)

zayd-an darab-tu-hu zayd-a hit-I-him "As for Zayd, I hit him".

The tawkiyd lafdiy are not mentioned.


187

is described in the same place with terminology similar to Farra's, al-maf'uwl 'aada 'alayhi dikruhu "the object of which is repeated (in the pronoun suffix after the verb)", and Sibawayh's sagalta l-fi'la 'anhu bi-haa' "you connected the verb (with the fronted object zaydan) with the pronoun suffix -hu" (118, cf. 8.2.3.3). 9.3.4 Later grammarians There are characteristics in Ibn Kaysan's work that distinguish him from Sibawayh and Farra', but these often link him to his contemporaries and successors. For example, as noted above his generalizations concerning the concordants and the ainf form are taken up by his contemporaries Mubarrid and Sarraj and become part of the orthodox canon. He uses Farm's terminology for the passive construction (cf. 7.3.2, 9.3.2.2), but describes it in precisely the same way Mubarrid has (cf. 7.3.4). It is also noteworthy that the points which tie him to Farra' and hence to the unorthodox Kufan school are mainly matters of terminology: rather than damiyr for pronoun, kinaaya, rather than najy for negative, jahd, and so on. On points of greater substance, for instance, the classification of locatives, he is in the tradition of Sibawayh, Mubarrid and Sarraj (9.3.1.2/3). 9.3.5. Unique The same limited set of five conjunction (nasaq) particles listed in the MN (cf. 9.2.3.7) are given by Kaysan (111). At the same time he qualifies this listing by noting (112) that these five particles only occur in the context of coordination, while two more, laakin "but" and hattaa "until" do as well, also having other distributions, however. 9.4 Lughda Lughda's grammar is reminiscent of Kaysan's in many respects; it is a little longer (23 pages), having a more detailed treatment of (derivational) morphological classes of various types, and it covers the main syntactic constructions. 9.4.1 Sibawayh 1. The three parts of speech (22). 2. Topic and comment are distinguished (though cf. 9.4.2.1). 3. Fi'l is a morphological verb (223, 225) and 'inna (and its class) governs topic and comment (225). 4. The substitute is badal (239, 243), locative darf (225, 237),i-infjarr (225), partially inflected nouns gayr munsarif (230), and haal is used.

188

MINOR WRITERS

5. The locative is made a-inf because it is non-identical to the topic (223, cf. 6.2 e.g. (11)). 9.4.2 Farra' 1. Lughda discusses V-N and N-V sequence without invoking a topic-comment distinction (225, cf. 8.2.3.2).Q 82 2. Words {kalimaat) which typically govern an i-inf include prepositions, locatives (e.g tahta "below") and nouns like hull "all" and gayr "except" are distinguished (225); unlike in Kaysan (9.3.1.3) no sub-classifications are offered and one detects here the influence of Farra's sifa (722, cf. also Omar 1987: 6 for similar formulation in Nahhas). The 'idaafa (226) is treated separately. 3. In one place (237) fully inflected nouns are maajaraa (vs. 9.4.1.4). 4. The passive is "the verb whose agent is not named" (224), though its description is as with Mubarrid (cf. 7.3.4). 9.4.3 Sibawayh and Farra' 1. Lughda calls 'ajma'iyna "all" in (8) marartu bi qawmika 'ajma'iyna (239) "I passed by all your people". a qualifier, na't (like Farra'), but then (like Sibawayh) adds that its function is for emphasis. 2. Negative is either nafy ( 240, 242) or jahd (241), pronoun both mudmar and makniy (227). 3. He uses sagala (224, 242) in the same way Sibawayh, Farra' (and Axfash) do (Ap ID). 9.4.4 Unique Two points are worthy of note here. 1. Certain words,7 including question words, hal "yes-no?", kayf "how", are said to govern a following u-inf form in the function of topic (225).Q 83 2. Lughda has a chapter on "particles that govern nouns and qualifiers in the aform".

Lughda (225) says that they consist of particles, nouns, and locatives, although they are collectively called huruwf to make it easier for the learner.

189


(9)

'inna zayd-an il-dariyf-a indeed zayd-a def-nice-a "Indeed the nice Zayd is standing".

qaa'im-un standing-u

225

9.5 KJN Contrary to what might be expected, given its presumed late provenance, the last of the four books considered here is less like Sarraj, i.e. the standard grammatical canon, than are its earlier contemporaries Kaysan and Lughda. The overall organization of the book, in fact, reminds one more of the MN than the others in that the first half of it, over 200 pages, is given over to short summaries the average chapter size is 15-20 lines - of the different functions realized by the inflections, and as with the MN no attempt is made to generalize. Indeed, whereas the MN gives six functions realized by the u-inf form and 12 by the a-inf, the KJN has 22 for the u-inf and (what certainly is some sort of record) 51 for the a-inf, with each function having its own chapter. So literal is its adherence to overt inflectional form that the substitute (termed badal) has three separate chapters of its own, once in a-inf form (100), once in i-inf (182, 186) and once with the conditional verb (300), with no intimation that the three occurrences are in any way related. Because it, inexplicably, fails to give any examples of a substitute in u-inf form, the reader has no way of knowing that the badal can occur in u-inf contexts as well. There are two striking aspects to the work which tend to set it off from the standard pedagogical grammar. The first is the extent to which it is illustrated by examples from poetry and the Quťaan. Some of the short chapters in fact contain only quoted citations (e.g. pp. 50, 58), while others often give only one or two artificially created illustrations and the rest various textual citations. The chapter on the tamyfyz, for example (46), has two standard examples, (10)

'aksonu l-naasi wąjh-an prettiest people face-a "the prettiest people of face" 'asmahu-hum kaff-an generous-them palm-a "the most generous of them" followed by two Quranic and four poetic citations. Again this is reminiscent of the MN, which also tends to rely on such examples, but is in stark contrast to Kaysan and Lughda who operate mainly with examples contrived to illustrate the grammatical point under discussion. The second feature is the plethora of grammatical functions invoked to catalogue inflectional functions. An example with the badal was already mentioned. Sarraj's tamyiyz is divided into no less than three separate, and apparently unrelated categories:

190

MINOR WRITERS

(11a) tafsiyr: a-inf form after the numerals 20-90 xamsuwna rajul-an (45) 50 man-a (11b) tamyiyz: "in terms of 'ahsanu l-naasi wajh-an (46, = (10) above) (11c) the a-inf form after compound nouns: xamsa 'asaratu rąjul-an (56) 5 10 man-a "15 men" The impression one gets is of an author so overwhelmed by the often subtly distinctive contexts in which the inflectional forms occur that he simply decides each different context will be given an autonomous status, hence 51 contexts for the a-inf form, and so on. His interests, however, may have been more in the classification of the textual examples themselves than in the grammatical framework used to accomplish this, a point I discuss further in 9.8. 9.5.1 Sibawayh 1. The haal is represented in examples like (12)

qadim-tu approached-I

raakib-an riding

41

"I approached riding".

Noteworthy here is the mention that like the a-inf form of the locative (darf) the haal is not an object in the way 0awba in (13) is. labis-tu 0awb-an wore-I garment-a "I wore a garment". The same example (13) is also found in Sibawayh (15.19) to illustrate the same point, and his classifying it as a haal as opposed to an object (maf'uwl) again reflects Sibawayh's emphasis. (13)

2. darf is the locative (42, 52, 170). The opposition darf-ism is illustrated; significantly Farra's term sifa is rarely used (cf. 9.5.2.5). 3. Tamyiyz (46, 168) is used (cf. (11) above), as is fasl (not 'imaad, cf. 8.2.2); similarities are pointed out between 'inna and verbs (45, cf. 6.2), badal is substitute (100, 112, 186, 300), 'inna governs its comment (127, cf. above) and topic and comment are consistently used (158, 169, 174, 184, 198). 9.5.2 Farra' 1. Qat'. An a-inf form arises by the process (14) ál- + N + ál- + na't —> al- + N + na't-a As explained in 7.2. (Q 42), the a-inf form in


(15a)

lahu l-diyn-u to him def-religion-u "He is forever/permanently religious". 'derives' from (15b)

191

waasib-an permanent-a

lahu l-diyn-u l-waasib-u (38)

"and when the definite article is deleted [from l-waasibu] it is made a-inf form by the deletion (qať) of the article" (38, cf. discussion in 6.2.2.2). 2. Tafsiyr (45, 96) is used; the a-form in the verb is explained by the sarf principle (68, also 142); the passive is the verb whose agent is not named (18); 'ajraa (181) describes giving full inflection to nouns; the a-inf in examples like (7) above are accounted for by a verb's governing the resumptive pronoun (185). 3. With one exception (200) "govern" is rendered by 'iyqaa' (cf 8.2.1), usually the governance of an a-inf form (91, 96, 113, 160, 217) though also the governance of a verb by a-inf or 0-inf governor (104), an u-inf noun (177) and of the particle hattaa (185). It is also used in the sense of "occur in a position" (164). 4. Fi'l waaqi' (149) must be translated "transitive verb" (= Sibawayh's fi'l muta'addi); this is not Farra's terminology, though it traditionally belongs to Kufan parlance (cf. Weil 1913: 72 n. 1). 5. In two places locative elements are sifa. (16) fry daar-iy zayd-un fiy daariy = sifa (139) in house-my zayd-u "In my house is Zayd". A second example of this type deserves greater explanation, for it will be the topic of further discussion 9.8 below. For the chapter heading "as for the predicate (fi'l) that occurs between two locatives (sifatayn)" (115) the following Quranic excerpt is cited. (17)

§fiy l-naar-i xaalid-iyna fiy-haa in fire-i forever-pl in-it "in the fire, eternally in it" (60/17) The two points of note are the designation of fiy l-naari and fiyhaa as "sifa" and xaalidiyna, an active participle, as a fi'l "predicate (cf. 8.2.3.2), verb". In both respects this is Farra's terminology, and the entire example reproduces Farra's analysis of the same passage (III: 146.8) with one small difference. The KJN considers the uinf form a grave error (lahn) in this context whereas Farra' allows it, though only as an undesirable variant (I: 146.10, cf. Anbari §33, 258). I should note here that in only one place does sifa designate an individual preposition (min "from" 173), usually referring to a prepositional phrase, and where the KJN discusses governors of the i-inf (172) it identifies them in a general way only as words, huruwf (cf. Ap IB).

MINOR WRITERS 192 6. Conjunction is rendered by nasaq (128, 130, 131, 155, 216, 302). 'atf is also fairly common (e.g. 99, 129, 130), though the latter is a term common to both Farra' and Sibawayh.

9.5.3 Sibawayh/Farra' 1. Pronoun suffixes on verbs are termed damiyr (208, 209), as is huwa "he" in one chapter (108, 109); otherwise Farra's kinaaya tends to predominate (68, 90, 91, 135). Jarr is used once for i-inf (172), otherwise it is xafd; the negative laa in laa maal-a laka "you have no money" is nafy (47) but otherwise negative is rendered by jahd (200, 201, 295, 304). Conjunction is given both by nasaq (128, 130, 131, 155, 296, 302) and by 'atf (99, 129, 130, 148, 166), and fi'l besides being "predicate" (9.5.2.5) can also be "verb", as with Sibawayh. 9.5.4 Unique One general structural characteristic found in the KJN has already been touched upon, namely the multiplication of structural categories paralleled by the often unsystematic division of various constructions, such as that for substitute and tamyiyz (cf. (11) above). This can go so far as to include constructions whose grammaticality may be suspect, as in (18a)

zayd-un darab-tu-hu zayd-u hit-I-him "As for Zayd, I hit him". (18b) zayd-un darab-tu (36) zayd-u hit-I where (18a) is a topic-comment construction, with the -hu an obligatory coreferential pronoun marking the position of zayd relative to darabtu. So far as I know (18b) is not discussed by Sibawayh or Farra', though it is explicitly allowed in the KJN, where a -hu is implicitly understood. An identical idea is found in the Egyptian linguist Wallad (d. 943, cf. Omar 1987: 8). 2. There is a discussion of "psyche" verbs identical to that in the MN (9.2.3.9). 3. The example, (19a)

yaa nasru nasr-an 0 Nasr nasr-a "O Nasr, Nasr, Nasr"! is interpreted with an ellipted verb (19b)

nasr-an

.. 'a'niy nasr-an wa 'ad'uw nasr-an I mean nasr-a and I call nasr-a There is no mention of the 'atf al-bayaan (cf. 5.1.4).

(54)

4. Tamyiyz is split over three different categories (45, 46, 56, cf. e.g. (11) above).


193

5. A construction with a-inf form qualifier before the noun (20)

haadaa dariyf-an gulaam-un this kind-a boy-u "This is a kind boy". is called "the a-inf form of the indefinite qualifier (nďť) fronted before the noun" (75). Sibawayh (I: 237) designates this as haal. 6. The construction (21)

darabtu zayd-an wa 'amr-an 'akramtu 'axaa-hu hit-I Zayd-a and Amr-a generous brother-his "I hit Zayd, and as for Amr I treated his brother generously". is termed musaarika; other grammarians, so far as I know, give it no such categorical designation. 7. Interrogatives, demonstratives and independent pronouns are termed u-inf governing words (167, 169; cf. 9.2.3.1). 8. In constructions like 'ajuwz-in 'umm-u-hu 174 old-i mother-u-his "I passed a man whose mother is old". the qualifier 'ajuwzin is said to agree in i-inf with the noun rajulin "because of the proximity (pi l-jiwaar) to it". The syntax described is standard (e.g. Sib 195.1, Sarraj II: 124), though the terminology is unusual (though might be found in Farra'). (22)

marartu hi rajulin

9. The haal construction appears with yet a third designation. In (23)

'inna zayd-an fiy daar-iy qaa'im-an 80 indeed zayd-a in house-my standing-a "Indeed Zayd is in my house standing". qaďiman is in the a-inf form because it is an extraneous element; the sentence can stand without it and therefore it takes a-inf form. As seen in 6.2 both Sibawayh and Farra' use this criterion, though in neither it is given categorical significance as it is here. 9.6 Tabular Summary The following chart gives a general summary of the data presented. S = Sibawayh, F = Farra', L = features of later grammarians (e.g. Sarraj) not found in S or F, U = not attested in S, F or later grammarians (unique).

194

MINOR WRITERS

At the end I give a numerical summary of the features as I catalogue them, with the understanding that a mere count of features hardly provides an adequate representation of the intellectual tradition of each linguist. I discuss this further in 9.8 In the list, "no" indicates that the feature is unattested, x/y, e.g. S/F that both Sibawayhian and Farra'an terminology occur. (24) Summary grammatical feature

MN

Kaysan

Lughda

KJN

S S

S/F S

S/F S

S S

S F no

S F no

S F no

S/F F U

F no

S no

S S

S/F no

S no U no

S no no no

S no no no

S F no U

no no

L no

L no

L U

S/F no no

no no S

no no S

U F no

no no F no

S/L S F S

no S no no

no S F no

Terms related to predication 1. topic-comment 2. comment of 'inna governed 3. fi'l = predicate/verb 4. term for passive 5. zaydun darabtu Terms related to locative 6. term for locative 7. darf = non-identity Terms related to haal S. haal 9. qať 10. xabar il-ma 'rifa 11. haal - redundant Terms related to tamyiyz 12. the term tamyiyz 13. compound word Terms related to a-inf 14 numerals = xaarij 15. tafsiyr 16. kam-min Terms related to concordants 17. tawaabi' 18. badal 19. nasaq 20. tawldyd


Terms related to governance 21. wuquw' = govern

F

no

no

F

Terms related to i-inf

MN

Kaysan

Lughda

KJN

22. laam il-'idaafa 23. possession related to li "to, for" 24. kull/gayr as class of i-inf governors 25. jarr 26. xafd

no

no

S

no

no

no

S

no

no no F

U no F

U no

no S F

U

no

U

U

U

no

U

no

no no

no no

no no

U U

no S

no no

F no

no no

F U

F no

no no

no U

no

no

no

U

no F S no no F

S no S no S

S no S F S

no F no no S F

s

Other points on governance 27. words that govern u-inf 28. words that govern N and qualifier 29. a-inf form of preposed qualifier 30. musaarika Verbs 31. sarf 32. a-inf = 'an 33. imperative verb = majzuwm 34. "psyche verbs" 35. yaa nasran = ellipted verb Words 36. kalima "word" 37. harf = "word" 38.maayansarif 39. maajaraa 40. negative = nafy 41. negative = jahd

F

F

196

MINOR WRITERS

Pronouns

MN

Kaysan

Lughda

KJN

42. kinaaya 43. damiyr 44. copulative pro = fasl 45. zaydan darabtuhu described in terms of resumptive pro 46. or in terms of sagala

no no

F no

F S

F S

no

no

no

S

no

F

no

F

no

S

S

no

no U

no U

no no

U (or F?) no

no

no

F/S

no

7 9 0 5

13 8 2 2

17 7 1 3

10 11 1 9

33 43 0 24

52 32 8 8

60 25 4 11

32 36 3 29

Other points 47. "Proximity" 48. 5-member set of conjunctions 49. sagala Totals S F L U As % of total S F L U

9.7 Tha'lab and Abu Bakr Al-Anbari

9.7.1 Tha'lab I have not included Tha'lab in the feature tabulation for reasons alluded to in 1.4.1.7: we lack a broadly-based overview of his theory. Nonetheless, a number of points can be identified that do, indeed, as in the traditional representation, link him to Farra' and the Kufans. These I will outline here. He uses a number of Kufan terms with great consistency: kinaaya for pronoun (43, 275, 557, 592), jahd for negative (indicative, 100, 477, 559, 592), xafd for i-inf (84, 323, 445, 446, 553), na't for qualifier (556, 585), nasaq for coordination (146, 324, 368, 386, once 'atf 582), and tafsiyr for specifier in one instance (437, cf. 7.1.4). It was further seen in 7.2.4 that locative for him is sifa, and that he uses the term 'imaad, though perhaps not exactly as in Farra' (cf. 8.2.3). He has additional formulations that link him to Farra'. Fi'l in the sense of "predicate", rather than simply "verb" usually, though not exclusively an AP predicate, occurs in a number of places (471, 477, 530, 596), and he refers to qať as a grammatical construction, unfortunately nowhere with

197 adequate illustration or discussion (146, 324, 386). An aspectual distinction, daa'im, that perhaps can be translated as "stative" (231, 271) is applied to such verbs as saama "fast" (388) and marida "be ill", as well as to derivationally-related qualifiers like mariyd "sick" (400, cf. Farra' II: 402.11,1: 133.1), and finally he illustrates fairly extensively the 'taqriyb' construction (43, 44, 359, 360) haadaa zaydun il-qaa'im-a "Behold Zayd standing" (cf. Farra' I: 12, 13, cf. 3.6.2.5). ARABIC GRAMMAR: THE ERA OF HETEROGENEITY

Thus despite the rather exiguous grammatical material contained in his Majaalis, it apparently can be concluded that Tha'lab did use a specifically Kufan (i.e. Farra'an) framework on a number of points, and in a much more consistent and intentional (cf. 10.3) way than any of the minor writers treated here. In this context it is relevant to recall that Tha'lab is said to have been the first to write a book on the Basran-Kufan differences (cf. 1.4.1.7), which if correct would certainly have presupposed a sharp categorization of ideas and terminology relating to the two schools. Nonetheless, it should also be borne in mind that he did not develop an overall 'Kufan' theory, and that in other respects, such as his distinguishing the tawkiyd as a class or using badal for "substitute" (5.7, 5.8.1.1, and Carter 1973b: 298), he falls within a different tradition from Farra'. 9.7.2 Abu Bakr Al-Anbari One finds in Abu Bakr al-Anbari's works as well a number of points that link him, as in the Arabic tradition (Ibn al-Nadim, 112), to Farra' and Tha'lab. These include his use of sifa for "locative" in one citation (KMM I: 490), makniy or kinaaya for pronoun {KMM I: 209, II: 294, 'Alifaat: 30), maa lam yusamma faa'iluhu for "passive" {'Alifaat: 27), harf jahd for negative particle ('Alifaat: 26) and generally waahid (not mufrad as in Sibawayh) for singular noun {KMM I: 115, 124, 125, 126, 269, 383, 514) and the root jry for inflection {KMM I: 109, 160, 162, 166, 169, 219, 220, 224). Furthermore, he clarifies certain ideas which traditionally are linked to Kufan views. 'Adaat "particles" {KMM I: 465, Alifaat: 23, 29), for instance, are strictly defined as words like law "if, layta "if only", hal "Q" and 'inna "indeed" as those that occur initially, do not occur with a preposition, and must be followed by the topic (muxbar 'anhu, cf. Goldenberg 1988: 46). Note that 'adaah in his terminology does not designate the class of particles in general (cf. his harfxafd for "preposition" KMM I: 465). He also clearly states that a topic is governed by a comment {KMM I: 276) and in one place explicitly declares that a topic governs the comment and that the same comment governs the topic (i.e. that there is mutual governance, KMM I: 349), though he illustrates this with the actual words and does not use the categorical terms topic/comment or their equivalent {tartafi'u 'hiya' bi "ahwaa' wa ''ahwaa' bi 'hiya', in the phrase 'id hiya 'ahwaa min... "so she is more feminine"). This is the only 'Kufan' citation I have found clearly stating that one and the same topic/comment govern each other (cf. 8.2.3), and this fact (cf. Anbari 'Insaaf #5), along with Abu Bakr Al-Anbarťs clear definition of 'adaah (cf. above) would indicate that 'Kufan' opinion as idealized by Zajjaji, Anbari and other later grammarians drew from a series of linguists spanning, at a minimum, the period between Farra' and Abu Bakr al-Anbari. At the same time Abu Bakr Al-Anbari consistently uses 'Basran' terms. He speaks of the comment and ism of kaana "be" {KMM II: 214) in the manner of

MINOR WRITERS 198 Sibawayh, but not Farra'; the haal is always haal, never qať (KMM I: 178, 184, 346, 347, 496, 497, cf. 7.1.4) as one might expect to find in a follower of Farra' (cf. below), and he consistently distinguishes between the syntactically determined short vowels which imply a syntatic function, raf "u-inflection" (e.g. KMM I: 231, 276, 324, 325, 330), nasb "a-inflection" (KMM I: 231, 276, 324, 325, 330) and xafd "iinflectíon" (KMM I: 178, 246, 325, 330, 397) from those that are lexically determined, the damma "vowel u" (KMM I: 273, 274, 299, 325, 328), fatha "vowel a" (KMM I: 273, 305, 324, 325, 328) and kasra "vowel f (KMM I: 299, 305, 325). This follows the Sibawayhian tradition, but departs from Farra' (cf. 8.1).

Furthermore, he occasionally uses terminological doublets; besides Farra's jry for declension, for example he has Sibawayh's srf (KMM I: 161, 167, 171), and besides waahid for "singular", ism mufrad ('Alifaat: 28, also 'afrada "make singular", KMM I: 525). Moreover, as with Tha'lab's, Abu Bakr al-Anbari's thinking displays distinctly 4 th /10 th century preoccupations. He is keenly interested in the 'usuwl in the sense of explanatory theory, as his frequent references to the "reason" or "cause" ('illa) of a construction or usage shows (KMM I: 158, 293, 500, II: 294, 297), and his use of muxbar and muxbar 'anhu ('Alifaat: 29) is perhaps among the earliest usages of the terms in the categorical sense of "comment" and "topic". While he was clearly adapting his ideas to, and contributing to, contemporary Arabic linguistic thinking, his work is perhaps most striking for its unabashed defence of Farra'. He mentions practically all of the important linguists in his KMM, but Farra' far more than any other, as the following (non-exhaustive) table indicates. (25) References to linguistic entities in vol I, KMM ( > = approximate figure) Farra' Sijistani Tha'lab Kisa'i Sibawayh Axfash Basra Kufa

93 >50 19 16 11 5 5 4

That he should refer so often to Farra' is not altogether surprising considering that Farra' did write the first book on gender in Arabic (cf. 3.5); his frequent references to Sijistani, a Basran grammarian who also wrote on this topic, are explained on such grounds. He does, however, make his allegiance to Farra' quite plain in other ways. He never directly criticizes him, and on occasion openly defends him (185, 190), though he does attack Sibawayh (185, 191), Axfash (191) and especially Sijistani (KMM I: 110, 185, 258, 439, 484). In one place he confirms the correctness of Farra's view by noting that even Sijistani, whom he labels an avowed opponent of the Kufans, attempted to persuade his own colleagues of the correctness of Farra's idea (KMM I: 191).

199 In ideological terms, then, perhaps more so than in the strictly linguistic, Abu Bakr al-Anban saw himself as an inheritor of Farra's Kufan mantle. ARABIC GRAMMAR: THE ERA OF HETEROGENEITY

9.8 Terminological and Conceptual Heterogeneity

The heterogeneous nature of the four writers summarized in 9.2-9.7 manifests itself in two ways; on the one hand all of them draw on both the Sibawayhian and Farra'an traditions emphasizing one or the other, as well as occasionally adding special touches of their own; on the other hand none of the four can themselves be said to share enough common features with each other to form a 'school' of any kind. The impression is rather that of each linguist picking and choosing from the total pool of linguistic concepts on offer in the 3 rd /9 th century and occasionally proposing new generalizations and terms. At the same time I think it important to recall the distinction between notational and conceptual heterogeneity, alluded to in 8.2. Notational means that the choice of two (or more) terms indifferently characterizes the same phenomenon - a state of free variation in the sense of 5.3.3. Whether conjunction is called nasaq or 'atf, negation jahd or nafy, a pronoun kinaaya or damiyr8 is for our writers of little substance, because the items either term designates are the same. Much of the varying terminology falls into this category. Conceptual heterogeneity, on the other hand, involves a situation where a variation in terminology implies a different conceptualization of the data involved. A good example here concerns the sifa/darf distinction. The MN (cf. 9.2.2.2), like Farra' (7.2.2) would appear to include locatives and prepositions among the sifa, whereas Kaysan distinguishes prepositions from locatives (huruwf ma'aaniy vs. darf, 9.3.1.1/9.3.1.3); the KIN uses darf for locatives, sifa at times at least for prepositions and prepositional phrases (9.5.2.5), and Lughda, while distinguishing the category darf (225,Q 84 237) includes them together with prepositions and certain nouns as the words that govern an i-inf complement (225, cf. 9A2.2). 9 Here clearly variation in terminology corresponds to different extensional conceptualizations of the relevant classes. In the list of features in (24), even including those features unique to the minor authors, nearly half involve notational heterogeneity where one term is Sibawayh uses kinaaya to designate general nouns that indicate any member of the class, fulaan "so and so, someone" for humans, kadaa "and so on, and such" for things (I: 256.10, 290.12, 358.6, II: 151.12). While not explicitly discussing the relation between this and damiyr, it is not incompatible with Ibn Ya'ish's (III: 84) formulation whereby, according to the Basrans, all pronouns (damiyr) are kinaaya, but not vice versa (fulaan is not a pronoun). Omar (1987: 6) reports that Nahhas held a position similar to Lughda. In this context one is reminded of Sarraj's criticism (I: 204) that some grammarians confound locative nouns and prepositions in the context of possessor complements.

MINOR WRITERS 200 more or less equivalent to another (8/9/10, 12/13/14/15, 18 (badal/takyriyr), 19/20, 21 (wuquw'/'amal), 25/26, 36/37, 38/39, 40/41, 42/43,).

Among the rest, important and broadly represented conceptual differentiation occurs in respect of the status of topic and comment (24.1), governor of 'inna (24.2) fi'l = predicate (24.3), darf/sifa (24.6), account of the passive (24.4), the notion of xaraja to explain inflectional form (24.14), the governor of u-inf (24.27), the notion of sarf (24.31), the governance of the imperative verb (24.33), and the status of the resumptive pronoun (24.45/46). Other points, like the designation of li "to, for" as the loom il-'iàaafa (24.21) though perhaps significant for the light they shed on historical relationships, are of small theoretical import. In my estimation the greater degree of heterogeneity is notational. Notational variants hardly appear to be the invention of modern 20th century linguistics.

9.9 Non-standard Traditions

One point that emerges from this comparison is that there are certain recurring formulations which in their conventional form go back neither to Sibawayh nor Farra'. These appear in an admittedly small number of constructions - in both the MN and the KIN there appear the "psyche verbs" (24.35), the MN and Lughda speak of the noun and adjective that are governedQ in the a-inf form by certain words, namely governors like kaana and 'inna (24.29 85); the MN, Lughda and KIN all distinguish a word class that governs a u-inf noun (24.28),10 and nouns like kull "all" and gayr "except" that typically occur possessed are said to govern an iinfform(24.24). lř The reappearance of identical formulations, often with identical examples, can be explained on the assumption that there were independent traditions as it were, data and analyses not directly related to the Basran/Kufan, Sibaway/Farra' transmission cycle. In more general terms it can be suggested that the MN and KIN represent a non-technical tradition of grammatical analysis. Qua linguistic theory it was quite unsophisticated, as my remarks in 9.3 and 9.5 will have made clear; what it did allow was the classification of a large number of literary citations within a simple frame of grammatical reference. Here it should be pointed out that this tradition cannot simply be interpreted as the wayward efforts of Quranic exegetes to develop a linguistic theory out of a tradition begun by Farra'. The KIN it is true has a large number of Quranic examples, and the relatively high proportion of Farra'10

The tradition of u-inf governors continued in isolated cases and areas; it is found for example in the Andalusian Zubaydi (65). Taking into account here that the actual characterization of the prepositions, locatives and nouns varies from one writer to another. The three here all differ from Sibawayh in excluding the basic possessive construction, maalu zaydin (cf. 2.2) from this class. For further evidence of this type, cf. Talmon 1984 on the Meccan school of linguistics.

201 inspired terminology in his work almost certainly goes back to Farra's MQ. Indeed, in one instance (9.5.2.5, e.g. (17)) it was seen that an analysis was almost copied out of Farra'. However, it is equally true that the KJN has a large number of nonFarra'/non-Kufan terms that belong firmly to the Sibawayhian/Basran tradition. Moreover, there are many instances where Quranic citations appear in contexts quite different from those used by Farra'.13 ARABIC GRAMMAR: THE ERA OF HETEROGENEITY

9.10 Dating Works

The dating of the works followed in this study moves essentially from the known to the unknown. This chapter discusses four authors, Sibawayh, Farra', Lughda and Kaysan, whose dates are relatively fixed through an independent source, i.e. not determined through the style of linguistic description itself.th This source is the bio-bibliographical literature that came into its own in the 4 /10 th century. Biographies for nearly all Islamic literati and scholars were compiled, including those of linguists, for whom compilations (Tabaqaat) were first made in the mid-ninth century (Ibn al-Nadim, Zubaydi). These sources provide independent confirmation - independent from what is reported in the manuscripts of the various grammatical works themselves -- that, for example, Sibawayh died either somewhere in Persia or Basra in the late eighth century (4 separate dates are suggested, one in Ibn Nadim (the one used here) and three in Suyuti, II: 230) and was the author of the Kitaab. The problem for two of the works, the MN and the KJN is not when the author lived but rather whether the works attributed to them were in fact written by them. The problem has already been briefly touched on in 9.1 above, where it was noted that a traditional attribution of the KJN to Sibawayh's teacher Xalil must be incorrect. This follows, inter alia, from internal textual evidence of the following type. There are certain themes and terminology that, so far as we know, emerged only in the last half of the ninth century. The KJN contains these traits; therefore it must stem from this era or afterwards. Logically, of course, the possibility exists that the KJN was the innovator and hence the work could have preceded this time period, though on general grounds given the rather unsophisticated nature of the work I think it unlikely such relatively influential terms would have originated in such a book. Two of the traits are the term tamyiyz, which as seen in 7.1, 7.1.2 stems from Mubarrid, and a criterion for identifying nouns, a point not yet mentioned in the current study. The criterion works as follows: nouns are whatever occur as agent, object or possessor (cf. Owens 1988 n. 144), an idea that appears first with Kaysan (106) and Lughda (222). Furthermore, making a categorical distinction between terms like qať/haal (24.8/9) which in Sibawayh and Farra' tend to be complementary (Sibawayh used haal, Farra' mainly qať) speaks for a later synthesis of earlier established concepts.

For example, on p. 165 the KJN illustrates a point with an example that Farra' (I: 120.4) considers non-standard; p. 163 the KJN interpretation differs from Farra's (I: 132.14) and p. 171 a Quranic citation absent in Farra' is adduced as evidence.

202

MINOR WRITERS rd

th

If, however, the late 3 /9 /early 4 th /10 th century date of the KJN can be validated by such methods, the MN remains problematic. It contains no traits that obviously link it to a later (i.e. late 3 rd /9 th century) era. However, arguments e silentio are hardly sufficient in themselves, so other means must be considered. As can be deduced from the data in 9.2-9.8, there were a considerable number of terminological doublets in the ninth century. Some of these alternates were, so to speak, officially sanctioned in the Sarrajan tradition. This could be done by overt acknowledgment, as when Sarraj non-commitally remarks that Sibawayh's expression for copular pronoun, fast, corresponds to Farra's term 'imaad (II: 225, cf. 8.2.2), or through received practice, as when later grammarians continued to sanction Farra's term xafd for "i-inf' along with Sibawayh's jarr (e.g. Sarraj I: 45). On the other hand, there were also 'Kufan' terms and concepts which were explicitly criticized, and these tended to disappear from the grammatical lexicon. Mubarnd (II: 3, 131) for instance criticizes the Kufan notion that the imperative verb is governed in the 0-inf form (cf. 9.2.2.9); Zajjaj criticizes Farm's use of qa$' (cf. 6.2.2.2 Q 41) and Sarraj (I: 204) the inclusion of locatives and prepositions together within a single class, sifa. By the mid tenth century (e.g. Farisi's 'Iydaah) all three ideas are gone. Such ideas and terms can thus be termed 'early' in the sense that they did not survive the establishment of a fixed grammatical canon. What is significant here is that the author of the MN subscribes to two of the proscribed ideas; he distinguishes sifa (never durf, cf. 9.2.2.214) and refers to the imperative verb as majzuwm ( cf. 9.2.2.9). Other traits which he has but which did not long survive Sarraj are his use of harf for "word" (cf. Ap IB) and the division of the haal into two separate categories (cf. 9.2.3.3); his inclusion of pronouns within the class of demonstratives ('isaara) appears to be an early trait otherwise found only in Sibawayh (9.2.1.7). It should be cautioned that mere association with such 'early' terminology does not prove that the MN has an early vintage; some of the same distinctive traits in fact are found in the KIN, and this probably stems from a contemporary of Sarraj. The supposition thus rests only on two types of circumstantial evidence: lack of specifically late 3 rd /9 th century ideas, and use of certain 'early' terms. Nonetheless, I believe there is more evidence supporting an early, pre-850 provenance of the work than a later 3 rd /9 th century one.

It is noteworthy that the author includes elatives among the sifa. This is certainly at variance with Farra' (cf. 7.2.2) and perhaps points to a very early usage where the extension of the sifa class had not yet been fully delimited.

203

CHAPTER X THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASRAN AND KUFAN SCHOOLS

It is appropriate at this stage to sketch the development of the Basran and Kufan schools, for by doing so the necessity of an alternative conceptualization of early Arabic grammatical theory will become apparent. Such a model is developed in the next and final chapter.

10.1 Sibawayh

In the sources up to and including Mubarrid references to the schools are rare, though they do occur. For example, Sibawayh in one place (350.14) remarks that the reading of (la)

idrib 'ayy-a-hum 'afdalu hit which-a-them better "Hit whichever of them is better". in the a-inf is an acceptable (jayyid) and indeed analogically (qiyaas) more correct alternative than the u-mf in (lb)

idrib 'ayy-u-hum 'afdalu 350.2 hit which-u-them better since 'ayy here has the position of the relative pronoun 'alladiy, and in such a context the relative pronoun would have the status of a direct object (hence a-inf form). He supports this by citing a report that in a relevant Quranic passage (2)

§ min kull-i siy'at-in 'ayy-a-hum 'asaddu 350.15 from all-i faction-i which-a-them strongest "Of all the factions, which is the strongest"? the Kufans use the a-inf. This citation, one of three made by Sibawayh of the Kufans (cf. Beck 1947: 374 n. 1-41), is revealing for two reasons. First Sibawayh finds nothing at all amiss in the Kufan reading and secondly the Kufans here would represent a tradition of Quranic reading rather than a school of linguists. The

The other citations, (I: 383.6, II: 476.11) are in similar spirit.

THE BASRANS AND THE KUFANS 204 actual grammatical analysis is carried out by Sibawayh, and in this instance by Xalil as well, while the Kufans simply provide a confirmatory example.

Exactly how sophisticated the linguistic thinking of the early schools was, and whether indeed they did have a recognizable and distinct linguistic doctrine, are questions that may never be wholly answered. That the early tradition of Quranic reading was associated with accompanying linguistic analysis has been argued for by Beck (1946: 202, 1948: 326 ff., also Belguedj 1973: 171). Talmon (1984, 1986, also Versteegh 1983) further reinforces this point, drawing attention to the existence of a Medinean school of linguists in the earliest period and suggests that they analyzed linguistic structures for their own sake, i.e. qua grammatical theory (1984: 699). The evidence in this respect is suggestive, though relatively sparse, embodied in only three citations. One of these is (3) *maa 'adunnu 'ahad-an huwa xayr-an min-ka I:349.14 not I think one-a he better-a than-you "I don't think anyone is better than you". Sibawayh attributes this passage to the Medineans, but says that it is incorrect since such a sentence would mean that huwa has the status of a separative pronoun, fasl. Sibawayh points out that such pronouns occur only between definite nouns, while 'ahadan is indefinite (cf. 8.2.2). The significance of this passage is that the Medineans are identified with a constructed example, not a Quranic reading (cf. also I: 263.10, 424.10 and Talmon 1985: 226). Other references to the Medineans in Sibawayh refer only to their variant readings.2 Evidence such as this indicates that predecessors and contemporaries of Sibawayh were concerned inter alia with grammatical analysis, and were scholars who constituted what may be termed an exegetico-grammatical tradition. However, to suggest that they developed a comprehensive description of Arabic grammar would go well beyond the bounds of the available evidence (cf. Belguedj 1973: 170). Furthermore, as Baalbaki points out (1981: 2), it would certainly be wrong to see Sibawayh himself aligned with any single school.

10.2 Farra'

Farra' identifies three main 'schools' of linguists, Basran, Kufan and Hijazi,3 though in all cases only in the context of raw data, usually variant Quranic readings associated with one group or another. The commentary and judgments as to the appropriateness of one variant or another, however, were provided by Farra' (cf. 2

Cf. Beck 1947: 374 for the Mekkan (II: 321.15, 457.11, 459.12), Medinean (I: 244.9, 381.17, 411.15), II: 157.2) and Hijazi (II: 371.18, 321.7) citations in Sibawayh. The last is mainly identified as Medinean (Beck 1947: 375), though occasionally it is represented by the terms Meccan or Hijazi.

205 Baalbaki 1981: 5). Significant here is the fact that he does not align himself with one group or another, and the positions of the three 'schools' are not so different that they cannot agree with each other on various questions. The following chart summarizes those questions in which the opinion of more than one school is cited. Farra's remarks are also cited in order to show that he has no special sympathy with any particular school. I do not include opinions associated with individual readers who, at times, can be assumed to be representative of an entire school (e.g. Hasan for the Basrans, III: 199.7, cf. Beck 1946: 216).4 ARABIC GRAMMAR: THE ERA OF HETEROGENEITY

(4)

Page

Data

Schools

Farra's judgment

(a)

III: 7.6

wa 'an yudhara 'aw 'an yadhara

Medina Iraq

none

(b)

III: 52.5

'ahsan hasan

Kufa Basra/Medina

either correct

(c)

III: 61.8

'in ta'tihim

Mecca and some Kufan codices

possible

(d)

III: 214:4

salaasil-a salaasil-an

Kufa/Medina Basra

Basran probably better

(e)

III: 269.20

fa laa Medina wa laa Kufa/Basra given certain interpretation of passage

preferable,

(f)

III: 288.2

laa turuwna laa taruwna

both acceptable

Medina Kufa/Basra

No clear groupings emerge; in two cases (4 e,f) Kufa and Basra align themselves against Medina, and indeed in.a third (4a) the two Mesopotamian schools are joined explicitly as a unit, Iraq, as opposed to Medina (cf. Beck 1947: 362). Kufan and Basran variants also stand opposed to each other, Medina aligning itself in one case with Basra (4b), and in another with Kufa (4d), while once (4c) Kufa and Medina agree implicitly against the standard text. Farra' himself betrays no general preferences, hardly a surprising fact given his loyalty to the standard text (Beck 1945).

4

See Beck 1945: 369, 370, Talmon 1986a for further page citations related to individual schools. Talmon 1985: 227 identifies Medinean grammatical opinion in Farra's text, though it may be that it is Farra's grammatical interpretation that is on display.

206

THE BASRANS AND THE KUFANS

10.3 Linguists after Farra'

After Farra', Basra and Kufa become increasingly associated with specific linguistic ideas and terminology. Baalbaki (1981: 6), for instance, notes that Ibn alSikkit (d. 244/858) refers to a 'Basran' treatment of the definite article + numeral construction, and in the MN there are two references to the schools, each in respect to alternative terminology. Zaydun, in (5 a)

maa jaa'aniy 'illaa zayd-un neg came-me except Zayd-u "No one came to me except Zayd". is termed tahqiyq by the Basrans, 'iyjaab by the Kufans (80),5 and 'asada in (5b)

'iyyaaka

wa l-'asad-a and def-lion-a "Beware of the lion". is termed 'istiytaa' by the Kufans, qať by the Basrans, and tamaam by "some experts in Arabic" (ba'du 'ashaabi l-'arabiyya, 53).6 It can be noted in passing that the second piece of terminology tends to support the pre-850 date of the MN; on the one hand it would appear to post-date Farra' in that the 'schools' represent purely linguistic issues, but on the other hand neither tamaam nor qať appear in the later canon of the Basran school. The increasing linguistic orientation of the schools is further reflected in Mubarrid and Tha'lab and Tha'lab's student, Abu Bakr al-Anbari.7 Mubarrid represents approximately eight positions (cf. Owens 1988: 12) taken by the Basrans (he mentions Kufans only once), all of them centering on linguistic issues rather than simply on variant readings (e.g. I: 101, 102, 107, 110, 220 all on morphophonology, II: 71, 72, 81, 85 on syntax). Similarly Tha'lab's representation of Basrans and Kufans centers on various linguistic disputes, some interesting, others trivial. These include the form of words (106), their proper inflection (44, 157), governance properties (127) or their categorical status (217, 354, 359, cf. 9.7). It is important to note here that Tha'lab by no means presented a clear-cut Basran-Kufan dichotomy in linguistic disputation. This point can be substantiated in two ways. The first is based on (6a) and (6b), charts which summarize those If my dating of the MN is correct (cf. 9.10), this would be the first instance where the Kufans are referred to collectively. I have found neither set of terms applied categorically in later studies of Basrans and Kufans (cf. e.g. Anbari §34-38, pp. 260-293 where he discusses questions relating to the 'exception'). Both 'iyjaab and tahqiyq do appear in Ibn Ya'ish's discussion of the exception (II: 77, 78), though not with reference to a school, and not with categorical status. 6 Sibawayh (116.14) terms the a-inf noun l-'asada in (5a) the "maf'uwl minhu"; cf. Owens to appear a. As well as other scattered references, for instance Ibn Qutaiba cited by Fück (1950: 74).


207

contexts in Tha'lab where linguist entities, by which is meant either individual linguists or schools, are referred to either individually or as groups. (6a) Number of references to linguists/schools in Tha'lab's Majaalis (6a i) individual references Farra' Kisa'i Sibawayh Axfash Mazini Basrans "Our friends" {'ashaabunaa)

33 18 2 4 3 7 3

(6a ii) Two or more entities mentioned in same context Farra' and Kisa'i together 16 Basra and "our friends" 2 Basra and "us" {nahnu) 1 Sibawayh and Kufans 2 Sibawayh and Axfash 1 Sibawayh, Xalil and their friends 1 Sibawayh, Basra, "we" 1 Farra', Kisa'i and Xalil 1 Kisa'i and/or Farra', our friends 3 Farra', Kisa'i and Sibawayh 5 Basra, Farra' and Kisa'i 5 Farra', Sibawayh, his friends 1 "we", Sibawayh, Basra 1 (see Ap IH for page references, with a more complete categorization of contexts) (6b) Total references to each entity Kufa Basra Xalil Sibawayh Farra' Kisa'i Axfash Mazini We {nahnu) Our friends Sibawayh's friends

3 16 2 14 63 43 5 4 2 3 2

The 'Kufanness' of Tha'lab is indicated by his greater reliance on Farra' and Kisa'i, though significantly Sibawayh and other individual Basrans like Axfash are far from ignored. A strict Basran-Kufan division does not, however, clearly emerge. In fact, Kufa and Basra are referred to only 19 times in all, never directly in

THE BASRANS AND THE KUFANS 208 opposition to each other; instead Tha'lab prefers associating individual usages with individual grammarians.

The second point indicative of Tha'lab's treatment of the Basran-Kufan dichotomy is that relations between the Kufans and Basrans (or the individual representatives of these) are frequently, though by no means always adversative. Kisa'i and Sibawayh can agree against Farra' (354), Farra' and Mazini find common ground (540), and Sibawayh/Basrans, Kisa'i, and Farra' can each have differing opinions (403, 445). Nor do Farra' and Kisa'i always see eye to eye (262, 313, 419, 582). Although Tha'lab emphasizes Kufan ideas (cf. 9.7), often opposes Basrans to Kufans, and presents the groupings in terms of a sharper factionalism than his predecessors (e.g. "us, our friends" vs. "his friends"), the oppositions he represents do not exclusively fall on a Kufan-Basran axis, nor does he portray the two camps always at loggerheads. However, his emphasis on Farra's ideas in particular do mark him as a Kufan (9.7.1) and his tradition was carried forward by Abu Bakr alAnbari (9.7.2), so that there did appear in the late 3 rd/9 th , early 4 th /10 th centuries a distinctly Kufan orientation to certain grammatical issues. To the extent that a generalization based on two linguists is possible, it appears to have been a preference of the latter-day Kufans, Tha'lab and Abu Bakr al-Anbari (cf. 9.7) to invoke the names of individual linguists, particularly Farra' (cf. (6) and in 9.7.2 (25)), rather than the generic name of their affiliation, the Kufans. Such was not the case with at least some8 of their 'Basran' contemporaries, however, as will be seen in the following section.

10.4 Zajjaj

10.4.1 Some basic data As shown in the preceding, up to Mubarrid/Tha'lab the number of times linguistic schools are mentioned is actually quite small; only Tha'lab refers to them more than 10 times, and there is no systematic comparison at all. It is only with Mubarrid's student Zajjaj that the two linguistic schools of Basra and Kufa come into their own, as the following chart confirms.9

The fact that there exists a large hiatus between Farra' and the next famous Kufan, Tha'lab, I think underscores the relatively late establishment of the schools as linguistic entities (cf. 10.5, Fleisch 1957: 10); Tha'lab did much to resurrect the name of Farra'. The data comes from the first two volumes of his Ma 'aaniy, the only two available to me.

209


(7)

References to Basra and Kufa in Zajjaj Basra

Kufa

"Grammarians"

43 25 102 (see Ap IJ for documentation of figures)

'ahl al-luga

other groups

28

21

The first point to note is that it was not simply Basra and Kufa that emerged at this time as fixed points within the linguistic cosmogony. References to grammarians in general also proliferate, and philologists ('ahl al-luga) establish themselves as an independent category. Other groups include the Medinean or Hijazi readers, 'ahl al-hadiy0 and experts in Arabic, 'ahl al-'arabiyya. A full-fledged bureaucracy of linguistics is beginning to emerge. So far as the representation of the category Basra/Kufa itself goes the relationship was not always one of opposition. In 12 instances Zajjaj says specifically that Kufans and Basrans agree (e.g. I: 312: laysa bayna l-nahwfyyiyna lbasriyyiyna wa l-kuwftyyiyna xilaafun, cf. Ap IJ for details) and often adds that on various issues no disagreement among the linguists (nahwiyyuwna) exists. On 3 occasions there is a difference, on which however Zajjaj does not pass judgment, and only on 4 occasions is there indicated a specific difference of opinion between the Basrans and the Kufans. At the same time the dominance of the Basran school, hinted at already in Mubarrid, is consolidated. This is confirmed not only by the greater number of times, all of them approvingly, that the Basrans are mentioned, but also by the fact that whereas a grammatical point can be supported by its association with the Basran school alone (e.g. I: 355, II: 70), the same could be achieved by the Kufans only when the Basrans also thought in the same way. For example, the Kufan term for separative pronoun, 'imaad is recognized as being valid because it is seen to correspond directly to the Basran fasl (I: 27, 37, cf. 8.2.2); in a group containing m. and f. referents in the Kufan view m. agreement applies, which the Basrans agree with (I: 312) and they and the Basrans both agree on the deletion of fiyhi "in it" in certain contexts (I: 98). On the other hand, in the four cases where Kufan but no Basran opinion is mentioned (I: 296, II: 42, 270, 385) three times (all except I: 296) Zajjaj takes it upon himself to chastise the Kufans or reject their views altogether. In a sense there are only a handful of cases ~ those where Kufan and Basran ideas are different but no judgment is passed on them (e.g. I: 312, 373, II: 135) ~ that the Kufans are seen to have any independent opinions worth recognizing. Furthermore, Weil's observations on the diversity of Basran views as represented by Anbari (cf. 1.1) are equally applicable to Zajjaj. 12 times Zajjaj speaks of "some" (I: 92) or "most of' (II: 239) the Basrans, all Basrans except Mazini (I: 64) or Axfash (I: 309); on nearly a third of the points there is no Basran unity, and often a view is simply attributed to Sibawayh or Xalil or Axfash (or Farra' or Kisa'i for that matter) with no mention of the larger groupings whatsoever. Nor is it unusual for Basrans to join certain Kufans on specific issues (e.g. II: 188).

210


'Basra' and 'Kufa' serve for Zajjaj as very general orientation points; when variations of one type or another are attested in the literature -- variant Quranic readings (I: 353, II: 135), variant syntactic explanations (e.g. I: 309), variant phonological explanations (I: 373, 374) they can be ordered in a general way by classification as Basran or Kufan. Nonetheless, a good deal of deviation from these norms, even by linguists classically associated with one school or the other, is possible; in any case Basrans and Kufans share the same opinion in the majority of cases, though when conflicts arise there is always one majority school, the Basran, that provides the correct arguments to ensure stability in the system. 10.4.2 Accuracy of Zajjaj's classification An impression has perhaps already been gained that Zajjaj's classification of ideas as Basran or Kufan is approximate at best. A closer comparison of his criticisms of Farra' with what Farra' actually said tends to confirm this view. Three basic situations can be distinguished. First Zajjaj sometimes correctly represents Farra'. In (7)

§f-aaminuw xayr-an la-kum II:147(4/170) and believe good-a for-you/pl "It is better for you to believe". He paraphrases Farra's explanation of a-inf in xayran as (8)

f-aaminuw

huwa xayran lakum it with huwa deleted (in 7) and xayran coming into direct association with the verb as a qualifier (sifa) to it. He adds that he is not clear why xayr-an should then automatically take a-inf. Farra' actually does speak of xayran as being in direct relation to the verb, describing it as follows. Q 86 xayran is in the a-inf form through its association with a command, because it is a description of the command. I: 295.13 What Farra' appears to have in mind (cf. editor's note 4, I: 295) is that xayran is a qualifier to an ellipted verbal noun, 'iymaanan "belief. In any case, even if Zajjaj ultimately feels most at home with the Basran explanation that (7) is correlated with a structure (9a) (9b)

intahi xayr-an = finish good-a intahi wa 'ti xayr-un finish and come good-a "To change (your ways) and come is better for you".

laka to you


211

where xayran can be interpreted as the end goal of an action unexpressed in the main verb ('intahi), he appears to make an honest effort to interpret Farra's thinking. Secondly, in other instances Zajjaj reports Farra's actual ideas accurately enough, but by leaving out vital information distorts Farra's intended position. For example, both Zajjaj and Farra' give gayruhu as the standard reading of (10a), (10a)

§ maa lakum min ilaah-in gayr-u-hu not to you from God-i except-u-him "You have no God except Him". Zaj II: 375, MQ I: 382.10 (7/59) but Zajjaj reports Farra' as allowing the a-inf, gayr-a-hu, which Zajjaj calls an obvious error because it does not occur in the standard readings. What, however, Farra' actually says is that the a-inf is a variant found among some of the Bani Asad who use gayr invariably in the a-inf only in the meaning of 'illaa "except" even if no u-inf noun should occur which it qualifies. He cites the constructed example (10b)

maa jaa'aniy gayr-a-ka (rather than gayruka) neg came me except-a-you "No one came to me except you". Thirdly there are cases where Zajjaj, intentionally or not, misrepresents Farra's ideas, an instance of this being discussed below in e.g. (11). It is apparent from these few examples that Zajjaj was not interested in a systematic critique of past linguistic thinking. This impression is reinforced by the observation that in many cases Farra's (i.e. Kufan) ideas are not mentioned at all by Zajjaj (Zaj II: 266/Far I: 331.4, Zaj 304/F I: 348.6), in others are subsumed under the general rubric of "grammarians" (Zaj I: 190/Far I: 79.5, Zaj I: 246/Far I: 115.6, Zaj I: 416/Far I: 213.12, Zaj I: 474/Far I: 12.6 ff. (?), Zaj II: 462/F I: 411.16, Zaj II: 492/F I: 433.7) or would appear to be the brunt of Basran criticism without mention of Farra's name (Zaj I: 238/Far I: 112.1, Zaj I: 190/Far I: 79.5, II: 248/F I: 326, Zaj II: 338/F. I: 366.1).10 What above all distinguishes Zajjaj from his predecessors is the polemical style with which he attacks his adversaries, particularly Farra' (either mentioned by name or by implication). Although Zajjaj did not initiate this practice (cf. Talmon 1984 on Sibawayh), and although he brings it nowhere near to the studied systematicity which Anbari perfected, he carries it out on several occasions with considerable sophistication, one of which I will discuss here. Zajjaj at one point (II: 270, 6/40) is led to discuss the status of the suffix -kum in

There are also cases where Zajjaj cites Farra's opinions that do not actually appear in his available work (e.g. II: 212). It should also be borne in mind that Zajjaj may be criticizing Tha'lab rather than Farra* in places, though I have not investigated this issue at all.

212 (11a)


'a ra'ay-ta-kum gayr-a qawl-in Q saw-you/m-pl/you except-a expression-i "Did you find a different idea"? by summarizing Farra's interpretation. The suffix, like the -ka in (11b)

duwn-a-ka zayd-an without-a-you zayd-a "Beware of Zayd/You take Zayd". has the syntactic position (mawdi') of a (u-inf form) subject, but the form of an a-mf complement. Zajjaj remarks, however, that no modern (mutaqaddmi) grammarian accepts such an analysis because this would make ra'aa "see" ditransitive (with -kum and gayra as objects), which it is not in this context.Q 87 Zajjąfs solution, which is that of "grammarians reliable for their learning", is that -kum has no structural status so far as the dependency structure goes (cf. (13b), Farisi 'Askariyaat: 104 for later discussion). Farra's discussion offering the parallel example (11c i)

'a ra'ay-ta-ka =(ii) 'a ra'ay-ta nafs-a-ka Q saw-you-you Q saw-you self-a-your/m/sg "Did you see your(self)" "Did you see yourself? is, in fact, more subtle. In the first place he distinguishes two meanings for (11a/ 11c i), the first where -ka has the status of the reflexive pronoun nafs, having the interpretation "Did you ever see yourself in this way?". In this meaning (restricted to verbs like ra'aa "see", donna "think" and other 'af'aal naaqisa) the subject and object pronouns agree in person, number and gender (I: 333.3 ff.). In the second and more common usage the subject suffix -ta is invariable, the object varying according to the addressee (ra'ay-ta-ki if f. sg. addressee, etc.), the meaning being "inform me" ('ixbirniy). He explains that the ta- is invariable because "they [Bedouins!] do not want the agent's verb to govern a co-referential noun" (I: 333.12), the appropriate person being marked instead in the object suffix (m. ra'aytta-ka, f. ra'ay-ta-ki, etc.). This object suffix then has the status of an agent.Q 88 Farra' thus argues that the ta- is invariable lest it be construed as an agent. (12)

*ra'ay

ta ka Ag Obj This, however, is inappropriate in meaning since here a reflexive pronoun {nafs) must occur instead of non-reflexive -ka (I: 333.16). The proper analysis of (12) is given in (13a). In fact Farra's and Zajjąfs analyses have much in common since both recognize that the construction has too many actants, one needing to be neutralized. Farra' opts for ta-, Zajjaj for -kum.


(13a)

213

ra'ay-

ta-ka = Farra' X -mark of agent X = structurally neutralized (13b) ra'ayta-ka = Zajjaj Ag-X Both arguments have a certain cogency. Farra's account is better in that it is the object that actually signals the identity of the agent (being variable for number and gender), whereas Zajjaj's has the advantage that it is ta- that actually stands in the normal agent position. Zajjaj's discussion is instructive in that it enables us to see the development of Basran/Kufan positions that only marginally reflect the argumentation that occurred. Zajjaj's refutation requires setting up a logical straw man, correct in itself (ra'aa is not ditransitive), but one which has nothing to do with Farra's actual analysis. It is also notable for the asperity with which Zajjaj attacks Farra', calling to his own support all reliable grammarians (cf. also I: 190), as well as for the style of presentation. He starts by summarizing Farra's position (correctly or incorrectly), then demonstrates the faults in it, and finally reveals the correct solution. While the organization is not so sophisticated as Anbari's closely structured compendium, or even Zajjaji's 'Iydaah: 56 ff., many of the basic elements of content and style in the Basran-Kufan disputes are beginning to emerge. In passing, it is interesting that Tha'lab (216) gives a more dispassionate account of Farra's treatment, while nonetheless appearing to endorse the Basran solution.

10.5 From Data to Theory

The development of the linguistic schools should be viewed in the context of an ever-growing effort to systematize Arabic grammar compactly. So far as the system of grammar itself goes these efforts culminated in Sarraj's 'Usuwl (cf. 4.3); so far as variation goes, variation both in the data itself and in its explanation, they culminated in the canonization of the linguistic schools. Three periods can be distinguished. In the first period the three schools, Basran, Kufan and Medinean, essentially were traditions of Quranic reading, though traditions underscored to some degree by an analytical grammatical system. Here the 'schools' constituted but one source of data for Arabic grammar, others being versions of Qur'anic reading not associated specifically with Basra, Kufa or the Hijaz (e.g. anonymous readers, versions associated with Damascus, etc.), poetic citations and information provided by correct-speaking Bedouins (and linguists). The analysis of this data was carried out most avidly by Xalil, Kisa'i, Sibawayh and Farra' as well as other linguists. In this process, however, many instances of differences in terminology, analysis and attitudes to the data itself emerged. Differences between Sibawayh and Farra' were too large simply to be ignored by their successors.

214


During the second period, as interest shifted to compact systematization of data, a vehicle was needed to codify variation within a theoretically coherent set of rules, and if this was not possible, to include all variation within one system that reconciled the conflicting rules and terminology in some way. At first, up to and including Tha'lab, the variation was associated mainly with individual linguists -- Farra's or Sibawayh's ideas on a certain issue for example. There was a realization that larger groupings were possible -- Tha'lab's formulation wa dahaba 'ahlu l-kuwfa, al-kisaa'iy wa l-Farra'...(359), "and the Kufans, namely Kisa'i and Farra', thought that..." is revealing of this trend -- but these were by no means central to the classification of varying grammatical ideas. With Zajjaj, however, and his Kufan contemporary Abu Bakr al-Anbari (cf. 9.7),11 the use of Basra and Kufa as tools to codify linguistic disputation comes increasingly into its own. Whereas in Tha'lab references to Farra'/Kisa'i far outnumber those of Kufa, in Zajjaj the statistics are reversed. At this stage the representation of a sharply-defined Basran-Kufan rivalry was still comparatively rare, though it did occur. In some cases it was simply a matter of terminological difference; in others it came to differences of grammatical analysis (9.8) and in this instance it was always the dominant Basran school that came out on top.12 This ail-too predictable dominance of the Basran school, surprising if looked at in terms of the actual issues involved, becomes understandable when one considers two points. First, the development of Arabic grammatical theory was linked to a pedagogical orientation which became increasingly prominent after Sibawayh. Attention has been drawn to this point by a number of scholars (Fiick 1950: 26, §7, Carter 1973b: 301, 1985b, Versteegh 1980). In the late 3 rd /9 th century lengthy textbook exercises interspersing Mubarriďs text had already appeared (I: 13-21, IV: 58-69) and by the 4 th /10 th century Zajjaji ('Iydaah: 89, 95) openly acknowledges the failure of Arabs to use Arabic properly. There is not the space here to give a comprehensive account of the relation between linguistic theory and education. Relevant though for the current point is the relation between Sibawayh and Mubarrid. Sibawayh was no textbook writer, the Kitaab no textbook (Carter 1972a). It contains, however, a wealth of more or less systematically-presented data on Arabic which serves as the basis of a great deal of Mubarriďs Muqtadab, as a glance at Udayma's edition of this work, carefully juxtaposing (in footnotes) Sibawayh's Kitaab with the relevant parts of the Muqtadab, shows.

I hesitate to draw too heavily on Abu Bakr al-Anbari because my access to his linguistic ideas is somewhat limited. As seen in 9.7.2 and 10.4 the generation of Kufans and Basrans after Tha'lab and Mubarrid (as exemplified by Abu Bakr al-Anbari and Zajjaj) could be quite direct and vehement in their attacks on the other school. Given the reality of this rivalry at the turn of the 4 t h /10 t h century, the grammarians of this era may well have not hesitated to project not only their own linguistic differences, big or small as they may have been, back onto the early period of Arabic grammar, that of Sibawayh and Farra', but also to view the early period in terms of their own distinctive ideologies, the Basran and the Kufan. As Versteegh notes (1977: 109), there certainly were contacts, discussions and disputes between the earliest grammarians. It does not follow, however, that these controversies were carried out within the framework of two schools.


215

If, as is undoubtedly the case, Sibawayh's Kitaab was the outstanding source of systematically arranged data on Arabic (§9 n. 2), then it is only to be expected that grammarians like Mubarrid, whose chief concern it was to systematize further, should identify with their intellectual master.13 Viewed from this perspective, the dominance or the Basran Sibawayh would appear to have occurred largely by default; no other early grammarian left so comprehensive a linguistic tome and (for whatever reason, cf. below) no later grammarian was prepared to develop a comprehensive alternative. Secondly, the systematization took place not in order to render a historiography of early Arabic grammar, nor even to dispassionately consider the relative merits of various grammatical ideas. After all, many of the genuinely significant changes and countless smaller ones that took place in linguistic theory, those in the categories of concordants (§5), 'isnaad (6.1), and specification (7.1) to name but a few, entered the new linguistic canon completely unremarked upon. Rather, as already suggested, developments were part of a more general systematization of linguistic theory that above all reflected ideas prevalent in the late 3rd/9th and 4 th /10 th centuries (Carter 1973b: 303). In this context we should perhaps view the increasingly sharp differentiation of the Basran and Kufan schools, evident in the transition Mubarrid/Tha'lab-- > Zajjaj/Abu Bakr alAnbari--> Zajjaji as a form of collective monologue carried out by linguists in the course of attempting to formulate a comprehensive, explicit, yet simple and accessible grammar of Arabic. What could not be readily incorporated into their basic grammar could be stored in a secondary receptacle of 'Kufan' thought. It is against this background that one can understand the disappearance by the 4 th /10 th century of the Medinean school as anything but a group of Quranic readers, and the false attribution to them of a Quranic reading (Talmon 1984). In fact, they may have come closer to forming a 'school' in the sense of representing a definite system of Quranic interpretation than did either the early 'Kufans' or 'Basrans' (Beck 1947: 375). Nonetheless, Basran-Kufan dichotomization provided a simple framework for the classification of correct/less correct linguistic ideas; a third school was superfluous, or simply too cumbersome to integrate into the mnenomically handy Basran-Kufan dyad, the political ascendancy which Mesopotamia had achieved by the 3 rd /9 th century guaranteeing that in a dichotomous system Medina would be the odd man out. In short, the linguistic activities of the scholars at Basra and Kufa are reinterpreted according to the prevailing exigencies of the day; during the first stage they provided one source (out of a number) of data, to some extent of theoretical ideas as well, for the interpretations of the two great grammar makers of the earliest period, Sibawayh and Farra'. During the second stage (late 3 rd /9th) they came to represent the grammatical ideas themselves, providing a dichotomous Indeed, the following proportion, though oversimplistic, is not irrelevant: Sibawayh : Farra' :: Mubarrid : Tha'lab Sibawayh wrote strictly grammar, Farra' used it to elucidate the Quranic text; one of Mubarrid's two great works is a pure grammar with pedagogical overtones while Tha'lab's is a compendium mixing grammatical, literary, and lexicographical observations reminiscent in ways of Farra's multifarious observations in the MQ.

THE BASRANS AND THE KUFANS 216 model into which the differing opinions, in the first instance Sibawayh's and Farra's, but also incorporating those of others, could be fitted.

The picture that emerges from this second stage of development is in some ways, though not always, at variance with that provided by Carter (1973b: 303). In Carter's view the Kufan school essentially embodied all linguistic elements that the mainstream of late ninth and early tenth century grammarians held to be at variance with their own thinking. More will be said about the theoretical linguistic content of this proposition in the next chapter. Three points should be noted here, however. First, as Baalbaki (1981) has implied, the two schools did not spring fullblown from the dogmatism of 4 th /10 th century linguists, but rather grew out of an elaboration of the linguistic thinking of earlier grammarians. From Mubarrid (Owens to appear a) and Tha'lab to Zajjaj (and beyond) an ever-increasing readiness to refer to the 'schools' rather than to the individuals who represented them is discernible. Secondly, the 3 rd /9 th century Kufan and Basran orientations - one can still not call them 'schools' - were represented in the 3 rd /9 th century, early and cursorily in works such as the MN, and more substantively by Mubarrid and Tha'lab (see 9.7) as being independent from one another. By independent I mean that each orientation was represented at least partially by one or more champions, not by observers biased exclusively towards one school, as was later the fate of the Kufans. For a relatively brief moment, namely the era dominated by Mubarrid and Tha'lab and to a small degree that of their immediate successors, there was in fact the embryo, but not more than this I should emphasize, of a bipolar linguistic orientation, Mubarrid the Basran and Tha'lab the Kufan. Thirdly, however, as soon as this incipient fluorescence of independent linguistic schools became discernible, and despite the efforts of a few wayward Kufans like Abu Bakr al-Anbari, it was snuffed out, as is evident in Zajjaj's relegation of the Kufans to the status of a sparring partner, at best tolerated, at worst dismissed by the all-knowing Basrans. Carter (1973b: 303) has laid the blame for this decisive transformation on a growing mistrust of heterodoxy, and this is certainly an important factor. Others should be considered, however. It is unlikely that the Kufans foundered simply because Tha'lab found no worthy successor to develop his conceptual and terminological framework, for in his day he enjoyed considerable prestige and he did have a worthy student in Abu Bakr al-Anbari (see 9.7.2). The increasing interest in explanatory principles, the 'usuwl, that found their ultimate expression in Ibn Jinni's Xasaa'is is perhaps better seen as an effect than a cause of a narrowlyorientated grammatical thinking. Rather than explore different grammatical formulations of the same data, 4th /10 th century grammarians directed their creative impulses towards the justification and explanation of one single set of 'Basran' categories. What surely was an important factor, however, was the reality of Arabic as a non-native language (5.8.1.4). This fact must have inhibited any exploratory tendencies which the grammarians might have had in broadening the data base,


217

and concomitantly the grammatical categories needed to describe it. Descriptive grammar simply atrophied in the midst of its ever more aging data. In any case, a fuller answer to the question of why the Basran and Kufan grammatical schools crystallized in the form they took in the late 3 rd /9 th century will depend in part at least on a fuller description of the third stage in the development of the Basran-Kufan dichotomy.14 This lies beyond the temporal scope of this book. Basically a continuation of the second stage with 'Kufan' becoming all but synonymous with 'incorrect conclusion', the third stage sees its culmination in Anbari's work on the two grammatical schools; here the issues dividing the schools are carefully catalogued and argued. Many of them, as Baalbaki (1981) shows, do indeed reflect early differences between Farra' and Sibawayh, though to what extent they derive from early disputations, to what extent from post hoc analysis, and how the differences actually were perceived in the earliest period are all questions needing to be answered before an adequate history of the grammatical schools can be written.

The development can be represented on the following chart.

This stage perhaps corresponds to Carter's (1973b) summation of the Basran-Kufan differences better than does the second. Further research will indicate how a finer characterization of this period can be developed.

218


(14) Development of Basran and Kufan grammatical schools and relations between early linguists (cf. Versteegh 1977: 192-95) Original exegetico-grammatical traditions

Pre-Sibawayh 177/793

A

B (Xalil)

C

Kufans/Basrans represented as: F G...?

D (Kisa'i)

Stage 1. Readers and

Sibawayh

Farra'

207/822

Jarmi 215/830

Axfash Mazini Stage 2a. Grammatical schools0

?

MN V

285/898

Mubarrid Tha'lab 2b. Grammatical schools1

311/923

Zajjaj Abu Bakr Al-Anbari

316/928

3. Grammatical schoolsn

Sarraj ?

324/935

Mujahid

577/1187 Abu Barakat Al-Anbari solid line = Basran, broken = Kufan, dotted = weaker relation, dots = other relation


219

Notes to (14) 1. A transitivity convention holds; if A is related to B and B to C, then A-C are related. The A-C relation is the same as the "lowest" A-B/B-C relation, where the hierarchy of 'highest' to 'lowest' conventionally follows the order given below in (14). E. g. Mazini-Axfash = 'Basran', Axfash-Farra' = 'weaker', so Mazini-Farra' will be interpreted as 'weaker'. 2. Of the earliest Quranic exegetes/grammarians some are known by name and others are not; some introduced ideas that survived in the main grammatical tradition (Belguedj 1973, Talmon 1981, 1982, Versteegh 1983: 142) while others did not (Fischer 1985: 101). Given the fundamental similarities between Sibawayh and Farra' (and the MN) I think it can be assumed that they drew on common sources, even if this is not always acknowledged in the bio-bibliographical literature. At the same time, differences among them suggest that each must have had unique sources (cf. 11.5). 3. A clear break appears between the original exegetico-grammatical tradition and the later grammarians. From at least as early as Mubarrid/Tha'lab grammarians relied mainly on the work of earlier grammarians to define linguistic issues, and the Quranic readers were left with an official representation mainly in the Qiraa'aat tradition (e.g. of Mujahid, cf. Baalbaki 1985: 28, 29). 4. The transition of the Basrans and Kufans from an exegetico-grammatical tradition (stage 1 on right) to that of purely grammatical schools (2b) begins in about 840 (Ibn al-Sikkit 244/858, the MN) and is represented by 2a. During this period, however, the emphasis is still on individual linguists rather than schools. 5. The period 890-930 can be identified as the one in which Arabic grammatical descriptions were consolidated in a form which in many respects has remained essentially unchanged up to the present. This evolution rests on two related developments. On the one hand Sarraj produces in this period a reference grammar which effectively sets the tone for all later generations and on the other the concepts 'Basra' and 'Kufa' become established as schools in the sense of representing a distinct canon of precepts. A model grammar is complemented by a vehicle which allows variation to be accommodated within a bipolar classification as standard (Basran)/non-standard, (Kufan).15 The mutual dependence of these two processes is to be emphasized. So long as the choice of grammatical terminology and classification of the data was relatively free, as I have argued it was in the 3 rd /9 th century (§9), a strict division into linguistic schools was unnecessary, if not indeed impossible. On the other hand, a fixed grammatical system, such as Sarraj provided, necessarily precluded the use of competing terminology and conceptualizations, so it was at this point that the question arose as to whether and how the excluded material was to be accommodated.

It is certainly no coincidence that Sarraj's contemporary Mujahid provides the first explicit catalogue of seven variant reading traditions (cf. 1.3).

221

XI THE STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY ARABIC SYNTACTIC THEORY

In this chapter I address the question of how the development of early Arabic syntactic theory can be characterized on a purely structural basis, one ignoring any inherited preconceptions of Basran or Kufan contributions to the process.

11.1 The Data To set the discussion on a concrete basis, the chart in (1), similar in spirit to (24) in 9.6, classifies the various topics discussed in all previous chapters that bear on the theme of structural development according to how they were treated by the major linguists covered, Sibawayh, Farra', Axfash, Mubarrid and Sarraj. For additional historical depth I add Jurjani's (471/1078) treatment (in his Muqtasid). A total of 33 features are considered. I will forego any further detailed discussion of the points here, the reader being referred to those places in the text where the basic treatment is found. I should note, however, that I do include certain features whose development is only briefly adumbrated (like sagala). Feature 1 A. Earlier vs. later

Sib

'isnaad 1st vs. 2nd yes constituent, 6.1 subj vs. no pred, 6.1 SNIP operable yes 7.2 sagala in yes sense of to be structurally correlated with, Ap ID tawaabi' no identified as explicit class 5.2.7, 5.5.4, 5.8

Farra'

Axfash

Mub

Sar

Jurj

yes

(no)

?

no

no

no

(no)

?

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

no

no

yes

yes

no

no

no

no

no

no

yes

yes

222

DEVELOPMENT OF E A R L Y ARABIC T H E O R Y

i-inf Sib Farra' Axfash meaning of no ? (no) particle, 2.2 fronting of tamyiyz(6.3) no 1 no1 ? similarity in yes yes ? topicalization formulation (= later 'istigaal), 8.2.3.3 (waqďa l-fi'lu 'alaa raajť dikrihi/say'in min sababihi)

Mub yes 1

Sar yes 2

yes no

yes no

1 B. Farra' vs. others topic-comment yes distinguished, 8.2.3.1 mutual no governance, 8.2.3.1 fi'l as no term for different types of predicates (8.2.3.2) 'isnaad no as verb-agent relation, 6.1.2 separative yes pro distinction, 8.2.2 'imaad/fasl fasl 8.2.2 waqďa/ 'amal 'antal 8.2.1.4 maa yajriy/ mun munsarif, 8.2 takriyr/ bad badal, 7.1.4, 8.2 'adaah/ harf harf, 8.2 kalírna/ kal harf, 8.2, Ap IB quantifiers/ yes1 na't distinguished formally, 5.3.2, 5.5.1, 5.6-5.8 'atf il-bayaan yes 1 mentioned, 5.1.4,5.2.2,5.7,5.8.3.1 taqriyb no 8.1,Ap ID 1 C. Sibawavh vs. others Specifier has single name, 7.1

no

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

no

no

yes

no

no

no

yes

no

no

no

no

(no)

?

no

'imaad

fasl

fasl

fasl

waqa'a

'amal

'amal

'amal

yajriy

mun

mun

mun

tak

bad

bad

bad

'ad

harf

harf

harf

harf

kal

kal

kal

no

no

yes 2

yes 2

no

no

yes 2

yes 2

yes

no

no

no

yes1

no

yes 2

yes 2


223

darf Sib Farra' Axfash Mub Sar Jurjani syntactic yes yes yes yes yes yes criteria necessary, 7.2 morphological yes no1 ? yes yes no 2 criteria necessary, 7.2 Passive absence of yes no no no no no obj comp, 7.3 absence of no yes yes yes yes yes agent, 7.3 promotion ? ? yes yes yes yes of object, 7.3 Comment of no yes no no yes yes nominal S/predicate of verbal S both = 'predicate', 8.2.3.2 tabi'a = no yes no ? yes yes agree, 5.2.7, 5.5.4, 5.8.2.4 waqa'a as ? yes 1 no yes 2 yes 2 yes 2 physically affect object, 8.2.1. laa mawdi' no yes 1 no ? yes 2 yes 2 3.3.1 where separative 1 2 ? 2 3 3 pro occurs, 8.2.2 Symbols: no = not attested and probably systematically excluded from occurrence in the given linguist's system; (no) = not attested either because it is incompatible with system or because the topic happens not to appear in available works; ? = data available but not entirely clear; terminological pairs like waqa'a/'amal are readily convertible to binary yes/no features (and the reverse is also often the case), though the present system is considered graphically more accessible. (2a) Linguistic Features: Agreement among Linguists (based on (1) above)

Sib Far Ax Mub Sar

Farra' 8 -

Ax 22 10 -

Mub 15(2) 4(2) 17 -

Sar 13(2) 6(3) 17 24(1) -

Jurj 12(3) 6(5) 17 22(1) 31

(2b) Listed by decreasing frequency of agreement Sar-Jurj: 31 common features Mub-Sar: 24 (1) Mub-Jurj: 22 (1)

224

DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY ARABIC THEORY

(2b) Sib-Ax: 21 Ax-Mub: 17 Ax-Sar: 17 Ax-Jurj: 17 Sib-Mub: 15 (2) Sib-Sar 13 (2) Sib-Jurj 12 (3) Far-Ax: 10 Far-Sib: 8 Far-Jurj: 6 (5) Far-Sar: 6 (3) Far-Mub: 4 (2) (items in brackets indicate a basic agreement, but a scalar difference, see 11.2.2) This data will be discussed from three perspectives; technical problems relating to the interpretation of the data (11.2), its implications for the interpretation of Arabic grammatical history (11.3, 11.4) and to the reconstruction of the ur-period of theoretical Arabic grammatical activity (11.5).

112 Technical questions

11.2.1 Notational and substantive variation In 9.8 I discussed the difference between notational and substantive variation, an issue that inevitably arises when one attempts to juxtapose data of a qualitatively different nature, different in the sense, for example, that the role of the agent in the passive (1C) applies to a different range of phenomena than does the question of the morphological and syntactic basis ror the identification of the locative (7.2). Without going into an evaluation of individual features in (1), I would say that in contrast to the features discussed in 9.8 (24)1, in this case most of the differences relate to substantive grammatical differences; whether or not the tawaabť were identified as a class (1A), whether or not presence of object or absence of agent are taken as the defining characteristic of the passive (1C) are questions respectively of linguistic generalization and of differential defining criteria in a basic grammatical construction. Even a simple terminological distinction like fasl/'imaad (IB) implies a different structuring of pronominal constructions.

The two sets of data, however, are differentiated by the fact that (with the possible exception of Axfash) generally more grammatical information is available to us in the present case than with the 'minor writers' discussed in chapter 9.


225

11.2.2 Continua of development Inevitably also when more than two historical stages are considered, and here linguists representing six different periods are under scrutiny, there arises the likelihood that when changes from one end of the period to the other are considered they will appear in differential steps rather than in discrete leaps. Where appropriate, I have tried to portray this process with sub-scripts; 'yes' or 'no' indicates that there is a basic concurrence/difference of opinion in a given category, while the sub-scripts catalogue recognizable differences within a 'yes' or 'no' category. Those that I have classified are the following. 1. i-inf: Mub yes1, meaning of li only; Sar, Jur yes2, meaning of li or min. 2. na't/quantifiers: Sib yes1, explicit distinction, but not supported by different categorical names. Mub, Sar, Jur yes2: distinction and different names. 3. 'atf al-bayaan: Sib yes1, 'atf al-bayaan distinguished. Mub, Sar, Jur yes2, applied to wider class of complements than in Sibawayh. 4. Specifier: Farra' yes1, single name, = tafsiyr; Mub, Sar, Jur yes2, single name = tamyiyz. 5. tabi'a: Farra' yes1 implicitly = "agree" in form; Sar, Jur yes2 = explicitly, "agree" in form. 6. laa mawdi': Farra' yes1, items without major functional status; Sar, Jur yes2, uninflectable items in inflectable positions. 7. fash Sib yes1, separative pronoun after danna "think", kaana "be, become". Farra' yes2, separative pro after danna, kaana and 'inna "indeed". Sar, Jur yes3, separative pronoun after danna, kaana, 'inna, basic nominal S. 8. waqa'a = physically affect object: Farra' yes1, implicitly applies to action on direct objects; Mub, Sar yes2, explicitly so. 9. darf and morphological criteria: Farra' no1 , no mention at all of such criteria. Jur no 2, morphological criteria reconciled with lexical classification (Muqtasid: 641). 10. Fronting of tamyiyz. Sibawayh/Farra' n o , because the verb's governance of a 'tamyiyz' is weaker than its governance of other objects (Sibawayh). No 2 Jurjani, because an underlying agent cannot be fronted before the verb. 11.2.3 Differential classification of single features As will have been apparent in a number of places, a given feature can merit a differential classification (along the parameters of (1)) according to the perspective it is viewed from. The categorical identification of the concordants (5.8.2.4) for example was not made until Sarraj; nonetheless, the basic criterion used to characterize this class, agreement in inflectional form, was consistently used as

226


early as Farra'. Tabi'a "to agree" thus preceded tawaabV "the agreers, the items that agree", the defining characteristic the reification of the items it identified. The general category "agreement" is thus given separate classifications, as in (1A) and (1C). 11.2.4 Statistical dominance Where there is no overlap of terminology, as with munsarif/maa yajriy (lb) there is no problem in assigning a given term to one linguist or another. Where, however, a linguist applies two terms to the same data the question arises how a statistical tendency should be represented as a binary choice. The solution I have adopted has already been adumbrated in 7.1.4, where I argued that given the statistical consistency with which Farra' applies tafsiyr to the extensional class later known as tamyiyz, one can take tafsiyr to be Farra's tamyiyz (if one will allow such a locution). It is in terms of statistical dominance that I assign the term waqa'a (rather than 'amal) to Farra', harf (IB) to Farra' and kalima to Sibawayh (cf. Ap IB), and harf rather than 'adaah (1B) to Sibawayh.2 11.2.5 Other modes of analysis The data utilized is unfortunately limited in two directions. On the one hand there are many syntactic constructions and processes that have undergone a perceptible development but which have not been analyzed; one thinks for instance of mafuwl mutíaq, mafuwl minhu, haal, kaQirat il-'isti'maal, the notion of jumla (Talmon 1988: 90-93) and 'idmaar (as a holistic process) to name but a few. Largely unmentioned here, but indispensable of course is the contribution to be made from an historical analysis of phonetic, morphophonological and semantic/pragmatic theory. More case studies are simply needed to broaden the representativeness of the data base. On the other hand there are modes of analysis which I have barely touched at all. A fuller history requires an examination of the bio-bibliographical literature with the social networks sketched therein (cf. 1.4.1.5), and an analysis of the actual examples used by the linguists, including Quranic citations (cf. 3.6), poetic examples and stock linguistic citations (e.g. §6 (9di, 14), §8 (12) and 9.5.1.1). Perhaps we will discover where the ubiquitous Zayd came from, and where he moved to. Comparative stylistics (Fück 1950) would be of further interest, particularly in the dating of undated works (cf. 9.10).

Categorical considerations made more or less explicit by Sibawayh also favor the term kalima (cf. Ap 1B); Sibawayh used the term 'adaah once (II: 146.11).


227

11.3 Periodization

The table in (1) has been organized and divided into three parts, labeled A, B and C. In (1A) features are arranged for which Sibawayh, Farra' and Axfash agree against the later grammarians (cf. §6), in (IB) those where Farra' stands opposed to all other linguists, with the odd exception for Axfash (i.e. where Sibawayh, Axfash and later grammarians agree against Farra' (cf. §8)), and in (1C) those where Farra' and sometimes Axfash as well are aligned against Sibawayh (cf. §7). The data confirms, as earlier intimated (§8 and Owens 1988: 1.2.1.1), that the earliest period can be termed an 'era of heterogeneity', roughly from the earliest origins of Arabic grammatical theory to the late 3 rd /9 th , early 4 th /10 th century. This is evident in three ways. First, there are distinctive principles that set the earliest linguists off from later ones (1A); secondly, the earliest linguists themselves are notable for a lack of agreement on many points (cf. (1 B,C)). Thirdly, the linguistic thinking of early linguists can be orientated in a general way relative to Sibawayh or Farra', as indeed the traditional Basran-Kufan dichotomy implies. In the present list this shows itself in the fact that Axfash often agrees with Sibawayh against Farra' (1 B, C), and in (24) in §9 it was seen in the fact that the linguistic thinking of the 'minor' linguists can be identified relative to Sibawayh or Farra'. At the same time, as I have been emphasizing, the orientation towards Sibawayh or Farra' is never so strong as to preclude linkages in other directions. Axfash, for example, aligns himself with Farra' on a number of points (1A), while it was seen in §9 that the thinking of the minor linguists was marked by a certain eclecticism in their choice of terminology and theoretical ideas. An overall trend, as Carter (1972b, 1973b) has argued, is towards an everincreasing degree of standardization, a point made graphically clear in (1) by the high level or agreement between Sarraj and Jurjani, and for the most part Mubarrid as well, as compared to the heterogeneous nature of the earliest triad. I discuss this further in the next section.

11.4 The Schools and Linguistic Data

In the previous chapter the historical reality of the Basran and Kufan schools was examined in terms of how they were viewed as coherent entities by the linguists of the day. Now it is time to address the question to what extent the traditional division of Arabic grammar in Basran and Kufan schools reflects a linguistic reality. The statistics in (2) above serve to orientate the discussion. In this context Baalbaki's (1981) implicit criticism of Carter (1973b: 303) is relevant. Kufan grammar, as related by the neo-Basrans, is more than "tout ce qui etait hostile au Kitaab" (Carter, following Weil 1913), and "...tout ce qui figurait primitivement dans le Kitaab, mais se trouve rejeté par les néo-Basriens du III e /IX e siècle". There is some basis for Carter's assertion (cf. the data in §6,

228


(1A)), but as Baalbaki points out, there are also many places where the Kufan viewpoint as embodied in Tha'lab (cf. 9.7.1) and summarized by Anbari (Insaaf), does indeed conform to distinctive ideas espoused by Farra\ That is, 'Kufan' could mean simply "Farra'an ideas" or ideas that are claimed to be based thereon. Nonetheless, the point remains that given the material currently at our disposal, at best all observations such as Baalbaki's do is give an indication as to how accurate later perceptions of earlier linguistic viewpoints were. They do not form the basis of a modern historiography of Arabic grammatical theory.3 The statistical summary in (2) indicates that the greatest degree of agreement is attested between the three later linguists, Mubarrid, Sarraj and Jurjani on the one hand, and two of the earlier ones, Sibawayh and Axfash, on the other. Indeed, Jurjani and Sarraj disagree only on two issues, a statistic which underscores Sarraj's pivotal role in standardizing Arabic grammatical theory (4.3). A principle conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that it would be a mistake to take a single opposition, Basran/Kufan, Sibawayh/Farra', as the only pole around which the development of earlyťh Arabic grammatical theory occurred. The standard grammar arrived at in the 4 /10th century, the 'Basran grammar' of the neoBasrans, diverges so greatly from Sibawayh, implicitly incorporates so many features traceable originally to or developed further by Farra' (see §7 and (IČ) above), and contains so great an input from other sources (see e.g. §2, 4, 7, 9, (1A)) that the development reveals itself as too nuanced and subtle to be accommodated under a single binary opposition. The figures in (2) are revealing in two respects here. First, Farra' is the odd man out; the later, standardized grammars drew directly from Farra' even less than they did from Sibawayh. Secondly, however, Farra's intermediary role is highlighted by the figures in brackets. These numbers (a separate statistic from the unbracketed figures) indicate ideas which are basically similar, but differ in a scalar way (11.2). Farra' has more such features (10) than any other linguist on the list. In particular they show that Farra' shares significant affinities with the later linguists. Thus, without acknowledging and indeed not wholly aware of the fact, the late 3 rd /9 th and early 4 th /10 th century grammarians of Baghdad did achieve a synthesis of earlier ideas. It was not, however, done in the ring of academic sparring as represented by Anbari (or even Zajjaji), but rather through the incorporation of ideas developed by Sibawayh and Farra' and others and filtered through the critical and practical spectrum of many 3 rd /9 th century linguists, a sample of whom are discussed in chapter 9.

Of even less help is Fleisch's (1957: 11) view that later grammarians peremptorily discarded any linguistic ideas not found in Sibawayh ("ce que Ton ne trouvait pas dans le Kitaab était d'avance écarté comme dénué d'autorité"). The data discussed in chapters 6 and 7 caution against so simplistic a formulation.


229

11.5 Reconstruction

Fischer (1985), reviewing the data provided by the late tenth century linguist Xwarizmi, notes that there is evidence indicating that Xalil's linguistic terminology may have differed considerably from Sibawayh's, and if this is the case that it wouldth represent an early tradition which did not survive in any important way into the 4 /10 th century. He further suggests that Xalil's system of terms may represent but one of several early traditions which were lost. Perhaps, however, not all is lost. What we do have, as has been demonstrated in the preceding chapters, is an assemblage in varying degrees of detail of late 2 nd /8 th and 3 rd /9 th century work which, when examined m detail, by no means rests on a monolithic linguistic theory or employs a simple terminological vocabulary. It is these very differences which offer us an insight into the linguistic activity of the generation of linguists before Sibawayh (c. 150/767, Versteegh 1983: 142). The question has been examined recently by Talmon, who, basing himself mainly (1985) though not exclusively (1986a) on the tabaqaat, bio-bibliographical literature, has argued that the evidence suggests three more or less independent centers, Basra, Kufa and Medina. These can be associated in a quasi-historical way with three figures who appear in various tabaqaat accounts, Du'ali of Basra (69/689), 'Asim of Kufa (cf. 1.3) and Hurmuz of Medina (c. 117/735), as being the originators of Arabic grammatical studies. What is interesting in Talmon's work is his attempt to reconstruct the milieu of linguistic scholarship of an era to which we may never have direct access, the eriod before Sibawayh. I would like to address this same question here, though *om the perspective of the linguistic data itself.

E

The methodology to be used is analogous to that of the comparative method, except that rather than dealing with variants of the language itself variants of linguistic theory used to describe the language are scrutinized. The two main sources of early data are Sibawayh and Farra', and in addition I take the MN to be another very early work (cf. 9.10). Calling these three sources A, B, C, the method can be summarized as follows. (2a) Common features of A, B, C either go back to one common source, or are loaned/borrowed (or diachronically transmitted) between A, B, C. (2b) Divergent features either go back to different sources, or arise independently by innovation in A, B, or C. Sibawayh serves as the implicit basis of comparison, since he is the earliest of the linguists considered in this study. The status of innovation and borrowing must therefore center on Farra' and other sources, since Sibawayh, being the oldest, cannot have borrowed from a source later than 178/793. It is, however, relevant to point out, given the large number of times Sibawayh cites other writers like Xalil and Yunus, that there is some scope, how much remains to be seen, to distinguish

230


what in Sibawayh's system is original with him and what due to his colleagues, or at least, what cannot be said to be Sibawayh's ideas alone.4 The criteria to be discussed are presented more to provide the basis for further discussion and research than as definitive categorizations concerning the origin of early linguistic ideas. 11.5.1 Farra' The features shared by Sibawayh and Farra' (§6, (1A)), I assume to be instances of borrowings/transmissions from Sibawayh. Sibawayh represents the crystallization of ideas from different sources which were subsequently (whether directly or indirectly is a moot point here) spread through the community of grammarians. To assume other than direct transmission is to argue for an independent origin of the ideas in Farra', which is highly unlikely given the specific nature of the similarities, or for the independent transmission to both Sibawayh and Farra' from an older third source. The latter possibility is less implausible, though given the common focus of both grammarians (description of Arabic grammar), their common sources {Qur'aan, poetry, Bedouins, other grammarians) and common methodology (cf. §3 and 4), as well one might might also add, the reports of Farra' studying Sibawayh's Kitaab (e.g. Ibn al-Nadim), a Sibawayhian influence must be seen as the most likely explanation for the common features.5 That leaves divergent features to explain, sets (1B) and (1C). Between these it is really quite difficult to unequivocally prove whether they are developments of Sibawayhian ideas (possibly in the indirect sense mentioned in the previous paragraph) or independent developments, and if the latter again whether they are Farra'an innovations or ideas Farra' borrowed from other earlier sources. The best that can be done here is to utilize a sort of internal reconstruction to rebuild the historical development logically. In this there are some very rough guidelines that can serve to distinguish older, non-Sibawayhian inheritances. These include the following. 11.5.1.1 Mention in Sibawayh. Farra's inclusion of quantifiers in the na't class is already criticized in Sibawayh (cf. 5.5.1), indicating that Farra' was drawing on an older tradition. The mutual governance of topic and comment is mentioned, but not at all developed in Sibawayh (cf. 8.2.3.1). The fact that Sibawayh summarizes Xalil on this point, who traditionally is regarded as classically 'Basran', speaks for the interrelatedness of the grammarians at all periods in the development of Arabic grammatical theory. Reuschel (1959) establishes that Xalil had an important influence on Sibawayh, though he does not really systematize where his major contributions lay. Though here the possibility cannot be ruled out that such reports are a post hoc rationalization of the fact that Farra' indeed was seen to share many common traits with Sibawayh; cf. 1.4.1.5.


231

In some cases terms appear in Sibawayh that presage Farra's usage, without, however, one being able to conclude more than that the basic concept itself was not invented by Farra'. The term karrara/takriyr "repeat/repetition", for example, is usually used by Sibawayh syntactically to designate literal (e.g. 272.21, 273.6, 307.6, 326.4) or referential or functional repetition (215.10, 269.8, 349.16). Here one suspects that Farm's choice of the term takriyr for substitute (cf. 8.2) draws on an older tradition; it does not give any clues, however, as to whether his application of the term to the substitute is his innovation or draws from a non-Sibawayhian source (cf. 11.5.1.). Similarly the fact that 'adaah (§8 n. 2 and Ap IB)) appears once in Sibawayh indicates that it too is not a Farra'an invention. However, Farra applies it more often in the sense of 'particle' than Sibawayh and he uses it to refer to a different class of items: 'adaah for Farra' is generally a sentence intial particle while in Sibawayh the only items designated 'adaah are prepositions used in oaths. Such considerations would indicate either that Farra' drew on an older tradition established before Sibawayh, or that he himself extended its use. In 8.2.3.3 (e.g. (31)) it was seen that waqa'a was used by Sibawayh to indicate a verb-object governance relation. 11.5.1.2 Mention in other writers. Both Farra' (apparently, e.g. I: 323.3, III: 243.8) and Sarraj (II: 61) report Kisa'i as using the term sifa for locative; if correct, this would confirm an older provenance for this term; similarly, 'imaad is mentioned by Farra' in association with Kisa'i's thinking (e.g. III: 299.17). 11.5.1.3 Degree of complexity In some cases Sibawayh's analysis indicates a finer degree of analysis, and in this respect anticipates later developments more clearly than Farra' does. One case of this pertains to Sibawayh's criticism of the too general application of the term na't (5.5.1); another concerns the separative pronoun, where as seen in 8.22 Farra' reduces two environments terminologically distinguished by Sibawayh and other grammarians to one. Yet a third may pertain to the analysis of the locative, where Sibawayh (7.2.1) takes into account both morphological and syntactic (distributional) properties of the locative, Farra' only syntactic (7.2.2). One explanation for these points is that Farra's work draws from a pre-Sibawayhian source uninfluenced by Sibawayh's subsequent modifications.6 11.5.1.4 Degree and consistency of development Where one meets in Farra' ideas different from Sibawayh yet developed to a high degree of sophistication and consistency one can suspect that Farra' was developing older ideas. Here can be mentioned the idea of mutual governance (8.2.3.1, (1)), his consistent use of waqa'a for "govern" (8.2.1, (1B)), his treatment of the locative (7.2.2, (1C)), and fi'l in the sense of predicate (8.2.3.2, (1)). As an independent criterion, however, this is the weakest of all, for there is nothing to

Though the difference could also mean nothing more than that Farra' was quite happy with his conception of locatives, and chose to ignore or was unaware of Sibawayh's ideas.

232


rule out the possibility (barring adduction of other types of data) that Farm' himself developed the terminology the concepts. 11.5.1.5 Innovations On the other hand, Farra's use of tabi'a (5.5.4, (1C)), tafsiyr (7.1.2, (1C)), laa mawdi' (3.3.1, (1C)), and contexts where the separative pronoun appears (8.2.2, (1C)) seem to be candidates for innovative developments. His use of tabi'a in the sense of grammatical agreement is foreshadowed in and can be seen to extend Sibawayh's use of this term for a relation in which a secondary term follows (in some way) a primary one (cf. 5.2.7). His use of tafsiyr gives a name to a class Sibawayh had already adumbrated, and his inclusion of verbal and nominal tamyiyz within the same category does not depart radically from Sibawayh's organization of data. His use of the expression laa mawdi' can similarly be seen as making formulaic a concept, mawdi', already implicitly defined in Sibawayh (cf. Carter 1973a, Versteegh 1978). The recognition of the separative pronoun in contexts (1) after verbs = Sibawayh, (2) in all dependent contexts = Farra', and (3) in all topiccomment sentences = final formulation, speaks of a gradual development in which Farra' plays a mediating role. There remain, however, a number of cases with no unambiguous interpretation, including 'amal/waqa'a, munsarif/maa yajriy, harf/'adaah, and passive as characterized by lack of agent. In the case of the first two pairs the terminology is conceptually so similar (cf. 8.2) that it could simply be that Farra' extended a term (cf. 11.5.1.1) to an idea developed by Sibawayh. The fact that there exists an extended morphological set related to waqa'a perhaps speaks against such an interpretation for this term, though other evidence supporting either an independent genesis or one related in some way to Sibawayh is unclear (cf. 8.2.1.4, 11.5.2 below). Similarly for the other two categories. My intuitive inclination is to see waqa'a and 'adaah as terminology Farra' developed from earlier linguists, while for maa yajriy I would have to declare myself neutral. (4) summarizes the discussion in this section. (4) Origin of Farra's distinctive terminology n

development in non-Sib tradition

development of Sib '

'imaad na 't includes emphasizers sifa = locative fi'l = predicate mutual governance waqa'a 'adaah

tabi'a tafsiyr laa mawdi' separative pronoun takriyr (?)

Of course, this may also develop the thinking of other early linguists.

? passive maa yajriy


233

11.5.2 Other writers As implied in my discussion in §9, for the most part other 3 rd /9 th and early 4 th /10 th century linguists are to be considered as drawing to a greater or lesser extent on the Sibawayhian and Farra'an traditions, with later writers in particular sometimes introducing their own innovations. Two points are worthy of note, however. First, the appearance of terms going back to Farra' I think tends to underscore the independence of a non-Sibawayhian tradition. Waqa'a in the sense of "govern", for example, occurs in the MN (cf. 9.2.2.4) and the KJN (cf. 9.5.2.3). Indirectly I think this strengthens, though hardly proves, the assumption that such a term has a pre-Farra' origin, for it raises the possibility that these writers were not drawing directly on Farra' but rather on a general tradition, to which Farra' belongs, in which this term was conventionally used. By the same token, the lack of takriyr for substitute in any writer except Farra' speaks for an idiosyncratic application of the term by him. Secondly, the existence of isolated, unique characteristics in these writers (cf. 9.2.3, 9.4.4, 9.5.4) in itself speaks only for the wider prerogatives of individual linguists to choose and innovate in the era of heterogeneity. Where, however, one finds terminology such as that described in 9.9, one is entitled to assume that a non-Basran, non-Kufan tradition was operative in the 3 rd /9 th century, perhaps having its roots in unknown 2 nd /8 th century writers. 11.5.3 The earliest grammatical tradition Talmon posed the question who the first grammarian was. Following Belguedj (1973) I would put it differently, namely what the first grammatical tradition or traditions were. A precise answer is impossible for two reasons. On the one hand, sources earlier than Sibawayh are lacking, and on the other, there are so many points shared by the different linguists, such a great degree of crossfertilization, that there ever existed pure, individual traditions associated exclusively with one place, one linguist or group of linguists. With these caveats aside, however, I think that one can reconstruct three related yet distinct 2 nd /8 th century linguistic lineages, three sub-traditions, one whose appearance in the light of documentation is mediated by Sibawayh, one by Farra', and one by other 3 rd /9 th century grammarians, as discussed in 9.9. The individuality of these traditions can be partially reconstructed in concrete form by the methods examined in this section, and can be summarized in the following representation. I should note that I have not reviewed the Sibawayh-early 2 nd /8 th century links, and hence the extent to which Sibawayh drew directly from existing sources or innovated his own categories remains an open question.8

It can be noted, for example, that he had direct access to an earlier conceptualization of the na't, which he criticized (cf. 5.5.3).

234


(5) Topic mawdi', na't = general tamyiyz, qualifier tabi'a, class separative pro

Linguists

mutual governance of Top/Com

'imaad sifa = locative fi'l = predicate

psyche verb initial particles govern uinf form, kull (etc) as class of i-inf governor, N+ qualifier governed in a-inf

Sibawayh Farra

non-standard Solid lines indicate direct relation to an earlier anonymous tradition, remembering that in some cases the linguist indicated himself could have been responsible for the further development of the given terminology and conceptualization. Broken lines indicate a relation mediated via the linguist(s) indicated.

11.6 Principles of Development To this point the study has concentrated on describing the development of Arabic grammatical theory and the evaluation of traditional characterizations of the development. Related to the descriptive account is a further question, namely whether or not general principles can be detected governing the evolution of the diverse linguistic categories. The categories which have been outlined in some detail will be used to help answer this question: the concordants, (tawaabi' §5), locative (darf 12), passive (7.3), specifier {tamyiyz 7.1), the separation and nonidentity principle (6.2), i-inf form (2.2), the 'idaafa terminology (6.1) and the notion of sagal (7.3, Ap ID). The role of five general factors will be considered: the use of generalizations (11.6.1), emphasis on structural or functional factors (11.6.2), semantics (11.6.3), the logical use of general principles (11.6.4) and the role of reductionism (11.6.5).


235

11.6.1 Organization, Explicitness and Generalization of Descriptive Classes As seen in 4.3, a difference between Sibawayh and Sarraj, the major difference so far as the form of their grammar goes, resides in the organization of data. Whereas Sibawayh builds up his description piece by piece, starting with basic categories and moving on to more complex ones (4.2.5) by employing substitution techniques (4.2), Sarraj has everything pre-packaged under distinctive functional labels; all one wants to know about the comment (xabar) for instance is found under that title (3.3). Sarraj's organization rests on a degree of explicitness and generalization not found in Sibawayh. Concordant, taabV for instance, is a general concept which is explicitly sub-divided into five neat non-overlapping subclasses (cf. the one term one class principle, 5.8.1). Farra's inclusion of emphasizers and specifiers in the single category na't, or Sibawayh's vacillations between the use of na't, sifa, tawkiyd, and 'atf (5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.3.5) all designating in part the same extensional class, already well on the way to disappearing in Mubarrid, are entirely gone in Sarraj. Similarly, the set of items known as tamyiyz is made thentirely explicit m Sarraj (7.1). Taking a longer developmental period, the 4 /10 th century characterization of locative (7.2) displays an accommodation of distinct structural types within one general syntactic category. An examination of further categories, however, reveals a more complex pattern of development, one that calls into question the idea that overall trends invariably point in a single direction, that of a greater degree of explicitness in organization. Three points are relevant here. 11.6.1.1 First, in their efforts to create an overarching, all-inclusive and explicit categorization of linguistic facts, the later grammarians sometimes divided categories that arguably, from a modern linguistic perspective for example, could be included under one rubric. (6a) ra'aytu l-qawm-a kull-a-hum = emphasis (tawkiyd) saw-I people-a all-a-them "I saw the people, all of them". ra'aytu l-qawma 'ajma'iyna = tawkiyd all "I saw the people, all". (6b) ra'aytu l-qawm-a ba'd-a-hum = substitute (badal) some-a-them "I saw the people, some of them". Both kullahum and ba'dahum have the same function as quantifiers, yet in Sibawayh (cf. §4 (18b) and §5 (21b)) and following him, Sarraj, they belong to two separate categories, kullahum being an emphasizer, ba'dahum a substitute. There is, of course, a logic in this; kullahum has the same meaning and distribution as 'ajma'iyna, a word which does not have the pssd + pssr structure of kullahum. To include kullahum and ba'dahum in the same class would perhaps fail to bring out its semantic parallel with 'ajma'iyna. On the other hand, the substitute relation, as seen in 5.1.3 and 5.2.5 came to represent part-whole relations in general and ba'dahum, but not kullahum, which is a whole-whole relation, clearly fits into this class. In providing a neat categorization of all Arabic linguistic structures, the framework

236


that had evolved by Sarraj's day discouraged in certain ways the search for further relationships and generalizations among linguistic elements. 11.6.1.2 Secondly, it was by no means always the case that later grammarians operated with more general categories than did earlier ones. Non-object a-inf forms, as seen in 6.2 and 7.1, were accommodated under the SNIP principle by Sibawayh and quite likely by Farra' as well but in Mubarrid and later grammarians by the generalization that all a-inf forms are objects or resemble objects in some way (cf. 6.2.4). Comparing Sibawayh with Mubarrid one might want to conclude that Sibawayh's system was less general since he had two categories of a-inf forms, objects and non-objects, whereas Mubarrid had one. As shown in 6.2.3, however, Axfash operating essentially with Sibawayh's theoretical assumptions (SNIP) was able to reduce Sibawayh's two categories to one. That is, in principle there is nothing less general about Sibawayh's conceptualization than that of later grammarians. Similarly as seen in 7.3 the difference between Sibawayh and other grammarians in regard to the description of the passive was a qualitative one. Sibawayh embedded his description in a transitivity system in which actions carried over from one function to another, passives being those in which the initial function was an object rather than an agent. Later theories emphasized the absence of agent and the attendant structural changes this absence necessitated. Both approaches have an internal coherency and logic and imply further generalizations of different sorts. Sibawayh's, for example, brings out an interesting parallel between inherently intransitive clauses and passives of transitive clauses, while later approaches emphasize the function-changing effects of the passive, an object taking the position of the agent. 11.6.1.3 Thirdly, it is not always the case that Arabic grammatical theory developed in the direction of greater generalization. As seen in 8.2.3 (esp. e.g. (27)) Farra' conceived of a cross-categorical unit 'predicate' that included predicate of finite sentences, predicates of sentences embedded after kaana "be", 'inna "indeed", donna "think", the haal, and nominalized verbs.9 The categorization rests on the firmly grounded premise that all such elements have a common predicate function. In later theory10, however, the functions are categorically distinguished, with no common term unifying them: predicate of verbal S = fi'l, predicate of nominal S = xabar, verbal noun = masdar, and the haal. I discuss this farther in 11.6.5.2. Here I would like to draw attention to the fact that the term fi'l had considerably more generality (perhaps too much) in Farra' than it did among later grammarians, and that in later theory no correspondingly broad category was developed. In like fashion the notion of sagala among the earliest grammarians as indicator of syntactic priority (AP ID) found application over a set of diverse grammatical categories. The later development of this concept in the notion of istigaal, on the other hand, saw it restricted to one construction.

Recall that Farra' did not distinguish between verbal and nominal sentences. In Sibawayh as well, though his xabar does not sharply distinguish haal and predicate of nominal sentences (cf. 8.23.2). Sibawayh does not, however, have a common category for predicate of verbal and nominal sentences.


237

11.6.2 Formal or functional determinants Linguistic theory has not infrequently tended to have either a formal or functional emphasis. In modern practice Harris and Chomsky's early (up to at least Aspects) work, as well as Tesnière (1959), have stressed the formal structural properties of grammatical relations ~ presence and absence of items, adjacency, substitution and sequence -- and the development of linguistic categories out of these relations. To the extent that functions are recognized, they are of a derivative nature (Chomsky 1965: 69). On the other hand, tagmemics, systemic grammar and the more recent relational and lexical-functional grammar put explicit weight on functions, subject, predicate, object, etc. which linguistic items realize. A similar contrast of approaches can be observed in a number of places among the Arabic grammarians, an observation which raises the question whether the development of Arabic theory correlates in any way with an emphasis on one perspective or another. The discussion in 4.3 has already indicated a positive answer to this question. There it was shown that Sarraj's work was characterized by a highly elaborated definition of various syntactic functions. The key point here, as in the previous section, however, is whether an increasing functional emphasis is an absolute rule, in which case one may venture to speak of a determining variable, or whether it is only a tendency. On the one hand, there are a number of clear instances where later grammatical theory involves functional explanations as opposed to earlier structural ones. Examples of this were described in 6.1 and 6.2. In earlier theory the categories of musnad and musnad 'ilayhi axe sequentially defined, musnad being the first item, the musnad 'ilayhi the second (cf. 6.1, e.g. (2, 5)), whereas in later theory, by Sarraj's day, they are functionally orientated: M = predicate, MI = subject. Similarly, in earlier theory the separation and non-identity principle accounted for a-inf forms whereas in later theory a-inf forms were determined by the property of objectivity (cf. 6.2 e.g. (27)). A functional explanation replaces one which relies to a large extent on formal parameters (sequence and adjacency). Further, the later explanation of i-inf forms requires the reconstruction of a common function, the object of a preposition (2.2). Nonetheless, the data does not display an exceptionless movement towards greater reliance on functional characterizations of grammatical constructions. One relevant example has already been discussed in 11.6.1.2: Farra's notion of predicate potentially establishes a general, cross-categorical functional type whose members in later theory are represented by a number of independent functions. Further, Mubarriďs explanation of a-inf in terms of object function was followed by Zajjaji's account in terms of the formal relation of verbal governance (cf. 6.2.4 and Owens 1988: §2.4). Perhaps even more strikingly, in Sibawayh's account of the passive the functional position of agent and object are the key elements (7.3.1). In later formulations a more explicit role is given to formal factors like change in verb form (cf. (§7, (36c)), absence of agent (7.3.2), the necessity for all clauses to possess an agent (a formal constraint) and the promotion of a noun to agent status (7.3.3 and 7.3.5, e.g. (36)). While the last point does rely on the functional

238


categories of agent and object, it contrasts with Sibawayh in that there is the displacement of a formal unit, a noun, from one position to another. In Sibawayh active and passive contrast only in terms of the functions from which the action moves (agent vs. object). Greater functional orientation, like that of greater generality of statement, thus appears to be but a tendency in the evolution of Arabic grammatical theory, an important determinant but not a necessary one. 11.6.3 Semantic determinants Function is closely related to meaning in that the question inevitably arises whether the functional positions show a one to one correspondence between syntax and meaning. While the answer proves to be negative in the Arabic tradition (Sarraj I: 72, 73, Ibn Jinni, Xas I: 184 ff., 196, 342, Anbari Asraar: 79; cf. Owens 1988: 237 ff.), just as it is in the modern western (Kempson 1977: 77), the very fact that such a question was contemplated (cf. citations above) points to an increasingly important role for semantics in the development of Arabic theory. Nonetheless, its importance as an explanatory factor is limited in the same way the two previous parameters are. In the data presented in this book, the two best examples of semantic explanation unifying disparate structural types pertain to the clarification of the iinr form in nouns via paraphrase with li- (2.2) and to Zamaxshari's explanation of the specifier (7.1.2, Q 48) in which all specifiers are said to basically describe the item which they modify. Zamaxshari's interpretation allows him to accentuate the unitary character of the tamyiyz, what otherwise is not so transparent given the distinction between verbal and nominal specifiers. In one respect or another one discerns the growing emphasis on the semantic component in the description of the locative (7.2, cf. Ibn Jinni's meaning of fiy), a-inf form (Mubarrid §6 Q 39), and the shift in the interpretation of 'isnaad (cf. 6.1). On the other hand, the concordants (tawaabi), the class with the greatest number of sub-categories and with perhaps the largest complement of categorically-distinguished members, are ultimately given a purely formal unifying feature, namely agreement in case form (5.1, 5.8), while no overriding semantic principle appears to be at stake in later descriptions of the passive. 11.6.4 The logic of general principles Arabic theory, as a formal model, has an internal logic and coherency that is reflected in the implicit relations of one component to another. A relevant question here is to what extent an explicit recognition of interrelatedness by the grammarians determined the description of grammatical categories. That this factor played a role was shown in 2.2, where it was seen that the explanation of the i-mf form followed from the development of two general principles: nouns are not inherent governors and prepositions are inherent governors. In this instance the implications of changes in one part of the grammar were correctly and logically applied to another part.


239

Matters did not always work out so neatly, however, as later grammarians were not always consistent in revising one part of the grammar in the light of changes in another. For example, in 6.1 Sibawayh's transitivity system was seen to distinguish between objects and non-objects, objects being characterized by certain syntactic properties, like an ability to become derived "subjects" of passive verbs, which non-objects could not do. Nonetheless, certain non-objects, among them locatives, could assume an object position through a process of 'ittisaa', "extension of function". In this way locatives could partake in processes like passivization which otherwise were reserved for objects (cf. 6.2.1.4, e.g. (15)). Mubarrid considerably modified and regularized the object class, enlarging it to include, inter alia, the locative (cf. 7.2.5). Once the distinction between objects and non-objects is removed, it would appear that the notion of extension of function, 'ittisaa' would also become superfluous, for this is used by Sibawayh specifically in those cases where a non-object nominal is allowed to partake of object-like properties. Mubarrid (IV: 52), however, did not follow this logic through, for he continued to hold that a locative noun can11become passive 'subjecť only when it has extended its function to direct object. Sarraj (I: 79, also Ibn Ya'ish VII 73) is more consistent, requiring that only direct objects can become derived subjects. Both locative and absolute objects must first extend their function to that of direct object before becoming passive subjects. It is not clear, however, why this extension is necessary since locatives and absolutes are, for Sarraj, both types of objects.12 Both Jurjani (352) and Zamaxshari (259) forego the promotion to direct object, allowing locative and absolute objects to be directly promoted to passive subject. This is a step justified by the abolition of the distinction between object and non-object complement, though neither writer discusses the motivation behind their formulation. It thus appears that later grammarians only partly related the consequences of doing away with the object-non-object distinction to other components of the grammar in a systematic way, none of them so far as I have found discussing the issue in an explicit way. Further, however, in other instances one observes the logic of earlier grammarians being ignored altogether, whether knowingly or not, by later ones. The separation and non-identity principle, as seen in 6.2.5, died a quiet death in the late 3 rd /9 th century13, while the early sagala principle (Ap ID), one of considerable subtlety that applied to structural categories of different types, became ossified in application to one topicalization construction. For Mubarrid it is not the case that only direct objects can become passive 'subjects', as absolute objects become subjects directly without undergoing an extension of function (IV: 51). Perhaps to maintain the generalization that only direct objects can become subjects. This 'generalization' however, adds an extra step in the description of passivization of the locative and absolute objects. Cf. Shirbini (Carter 1981: 168) on a terminologically relevant, but fairly unsubstantive observation on this situation. 13 Perhaps not without justification. Although the point was never discussed explicitly, so far as I know, one observes in example (11) (§6) the extension of the SNIP principle to a-inf forms where the non-identity principle appears to be of little relevance and/or which are not structurally separated from a governor (cf. §6 e.g. (11)).

240


The role played by the recognition and logical application of general principles thus would appear to provide no better an instrument for understanding the necesssary factors determining the evolution of linguistic theory than the other categories discussed in this section. 11.6.5 Two unifying themes To this point I have attempted to characterize the evolution of Arabic grammatical theory in terms of four more or less distinct parameters with the view towards establishing which of them played a significant role in determining the direction of development. The parameters are generalization of linguistic categories, a structural or functional characterization of grammatical categories, a reliance on semantic generalizations, and the application of general principles to grammatical descriptions. I concluded that although certain tendencies can be identified, there is no sense in which any of the four can be said to determine the overall development of Arabic theory. There are, however, two common themes which pervade the evolutionary trajectory of Arabic syntactic categories, one of which indeed provides the central stability of Arabic theory. This I term positional autonomy. The other I call reductionism. 11.6.5.1 Positional autonomy The definition of a finite set of syntactic positions and their investiture with a diverse set of grammatical properties was observed in 4.3 to have been the essential difference between Sibawavh and Sarraj. The reason why Sarraj so neatly forms the end point of this study is that, so far as the available sources go, he is the one who clearly set out the positional categories with which all the available data could be classified. The refinement in classification did not end with him. As seen in 5.1.4, for example, the 12th century grammarian Batalyusi gives a point by point comparison of the differences between the 'atf al-bayaan and both the na't and badal, giving some constructions with the 'atf al-bayaan not mentioned by Sarraj. Equally, however, he does not propose any major revisions (cf. esp. 5.1.4 e.g. (18, 11.6.5.2 Reductionism The positions, however, came to embody a very diverse set of grammatical properties from all levels of grammar. The identificatory criteria for the positions of concordants, tawaabť, and comment (xabar) have little more in common with each other than the fact that they are used to distinguish independent entities. The concordants are identified by two formal properties: they follow another noun and agree with it in inflectional form. The comment, as seen in 4.3, has certain formal characteristics (agreement not being among them, however, and fixed position having only a qualified role), but also semantic and pragmatic ones as well. Moreover, as seen in the discussion of the tamyiyz (7.1) a position can accommodate quite different properties, nominal and verbal modification in this case. Nor does the definition of certain positions self-evidently define relations


241

between the positions, as seen, for example, in the development of the category of passive (7.3). Nonetheless, there was a method by which the Arabic grammarians rationalized the occurrence of ostensibly diverse characteristics in the positions and in the relations between them, namely their identification in terms or a single property. This property characterizes the position as a unitary entity thereby justifying its recognition as a discrete element, accounts where necessary for relations between different positions, and reduces what often are units of a most heterogeneous character to ones of uniform nature. I term this 'reductionisnť, in a descriptive, not pejorative sense. These singular properties are as varied as the material they describe. In the case of the concordants the formal property of agreement in inflectional form is invoked (5.1); for the specifier it is accomplished by means of a semantic paraphrase (7.1.2, Q 48 and 11.6.3) and for the explanation of i-inf form in possessed nouns (2.2) syllogistic argumentation is ultimately appealed to in order to render the construction comprehensible. A functional explanation is used by Mubarrid in his characterization of a-inf forms (6.2.4), while Zajjaji appeals to a structural one (6.2.4 and 11.6.2). For the passive, reference to the active clause appears to be the important normalizing function. The canonical clause shape is defined as Verb-Agent-Object, and the passive defined relative to this (deletion of Agent requires a new Agent, cf. 7.3.2-5, 11.6.1.2). The locative displays one of the more complex patterns of evolution, as items with different morphological form have to be accommodated at a common distributional position. Interesting here is the fact that both Saymari's and Ibn Jinni's solutions posit a common canonical shape for the different morphological types, with fiy either basically present (= Ibn Jinni) or basically absent (= Saymari, cf. 7.2.5 and Owens to appear b). It is perhaps partly in the reductionist constraints imposed on later grammarians that we should seek the reason that Farra's category of predicate (fi'l) was not developed in general terms (8.2.3, 11.6.3). Recalling that for Farra' this category includes inter alia verb, comment, haal, and verbal nouns, one notes that each of these categories developed an independent definition in later theory, each with its quintessential characteristics (e.g. cf. 4.3). Two of the positions with the closest distributional parallels, verb and comment, could be accommodated within a single supra-category in the redefinition of the term musnad (cf. 6.1). The extension of this term to the formally and distributionally different haal, or the introduction of yet another general term to recapture the thrust of Farra's categorization was, apparently, too great a step however. Here it emerges that generalization and reductionism are different processes: if a generalization cannot be encapsulated in an adequately reduced category it is not stated. While Arabic grammarians strove towards a more concentrated, succinct, reduced characterization of linguistic categories, the descriptive means by which this was achieved was manifold. Sometimes it was semantic or functional, sometimes formal and structural, and sometimes a mixture of these. No single grammatical technique was called upon, even if various general emphases can be identified (cf. 11.6.1-4). The preliminary answer to the question posed at the beginning of this section is thus negative. I say 'preliminary' for two reasons, which

242


unfortunately must await greater elucidation elsewhere. First, a broader range of data might well accentuate some of the tendencies discussed in 11.6.1-4 to the point where, if not absolute laws, then at least statistically significant patterns might emerge. Alternatively, however, perhaps it is the case that there are no overriding principles governing the evolution of Arabic grammatical theory as a whole, only specific factors exercising a greater or lesser effect on specific grammatical material. Perhaps one should inquire after the development of, for instance, the passive in different grammatical traditions. Is it perhaps the case that grammatical theory is constrained in specific ways by the very material it is describing, and that these constraints determine similar categories independently in different grammatical traditions?

11.7 The Early Evolution of Arabic Syntactic Theory

How great were the changes that took place in Arabic syntactic theory in the approximately 140 years from Sibawayh to Sarraj? I think m some respects the answer is large, in others, relatively insignificant. On the one hand, the most important development that occurred was surely the erection of a sophisticated, easily intelligible system for presenting the facts of Arabic grammar. Sarraj's 'Usuwl marks a milestone in that it ordered data of a most diverse nature -- distributional, semantic, pragmatic (cf. 4.3) -- within a small number of grammatical categories whose independence rested in their abstracting away from the set of individual features they represented. A formal prerequisite for this organization, though hardly a sufficient condition, was the mutual one-toone assignment of linguistic items to classes (cf. 5.8, esp. 5.8.1, 5.8.3). Each item was unambiguously assigned to a single grammatical category; each category represented a unique set of items. On the other hand, it is notable that relatively few of the categories that were canonized in Sarraj's grammar were not foreshadowed in some form or another in Sibawayh. The best illustration of this concerns perhaps the na't/'atf/tawkiyd complex (5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.4, 5.5.1, 5.8), though others abound.14 Moreover, as was argued in chapter 7, the development of many categories are best represented as a continuum,. with Farra' playing an important mediating role, and even when Sibawayh and Farra' stand opposed to later grammarians (cf. §6), the opposition often was in terms of the value given to the categories rather than to the recognition of the categories themselves.15 Even less noticeable is any fundamental re-evaluation of the basic theoretical and methodological principles underpinning the grammatical description: the assumption of dependency relations is a For example, many of the items that comprise the specifier, though not named as such by Sibawayh, were implicitly singled out by Sibawayh (5.2.3.1, Q 18). The contexts in which the separative pronoun were recognized gradually expanded (cf. 8.2.2.1 and §8 n. 9), and so on. 15 The musnad and musnad 'ilayhi for instance had a different value between Sibawayh and Sarraj (cf. 6.1), but in both the terms themselves stood for the predicative parts of the sentence.


243

fundamental syntactic premise (cf. 2.1) for example, and if the notion of substitution became less prominent by Sarraj's day, it was only because the basic substitution classes were too well known to require procedural proofs establishing their status (4.3.2.1/2). In a few instances a general notion did fall into disuse, as with the separation and non-identity principle (6.2.5), but such instances are rare and at most touched on only a sub-total of syntactic relations. The early evolution of Arabic syntactic theory can thus be seen as a period in which a set of diverse, if basically similar, linguistic ideas was developed into a conceptually explicit, simple and well-organized grammatical description. It culminates in Sarraj's al-'Usuwl fiy l-Nahw, and its end sets the stage for the evolution of Arabic grammatical theory in new and original directions.

245

APPENDIX I

IA. Subject Matter of Ma'aaniy l-Qur'aan, Farra' and Zajjaj

Farra'. Morphophonological questions discussed in Fat 1, 2, Baq 2, 20. Syntactic: Fat 7, Baq 2, 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23. Pragmatic: Fat 7, Baq 2, 7, 16, 19, 23, 24. Lexical and collocational: Baq 19, 24. Interpretive: Baq 16, 17, 20, 23, 24. Zajjaj. Morphophonological: Fat 1, 2, 7, Baq 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24. Syntactic: Fat 1, 2, 4, 7, Baq 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23. Pragmatic: Fat 1, 5. Lexical and collocational: Fat 1, 2, 4, 6, Baq 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10,13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24. Interpretive: Fat 4, 6, Baq 2, 9, 10, 11, 15, 21, 22, 23.

IB. Harf in Morphology and Syntax

Harf has two main designations in early Arabic grammatical writing. On the one hand it is a representational sign, either orthographic or a discrete sound; on the other hand it relates to an item with a syntactic status, whose meaning I discuss here. In Farra' harf simply means "word" (pl. huruwf 'ahruf "words") either as a class or sub-class (I: 4.4, 5.7/15, 6.17, 10.2/14, 33.16, 34.8, 57.15, 68.11, 81.2, 85.14, 94.12, 95.1, 100.14/17). Kalima (pl kalimaat, not kalaam, which has quite a different meaning), the term that later became the familiar one for this concept, is also found (e.g. I: 4.3, 38.10, 44.3, 53.2, 69.6, 99.12, 165.1, 181.7, 203.10), though it occurs less frequently. As the page citations show, harf occurs more often in the first 100 pages than kalima does in the entire first volume. Axfash has recourse to harf in the sense of "word" (19.6, 28.14, 77.15, 110.1, 144.8, 144.5, 200.21, 223.5, 264.1, 468.9), but also uses kalima (75.7, 127.8). Neither occurs with enough frequency to give a clear picture of statistical predominance. In Mubarrid kalima has become the standard term for "word". Depending on the context, sg. kalima in Sibawayh and later grammarians like Ibn Ya'ish translates either as "word" or "morpheme", this latter term, however, also corresponding at times to the notion of huruwf il-zaa'ida (cf. Levin 1986 for good discussion). The role of these terms in Arabic morphological theory lies outside the scope of the present book, however (cf. Owens 1988, § 3).

246

APPENDIX I

It is Sibawayh, however, who has perhaps the most complex use of harf. On the one hand it is Sibawayh who first uses harf as a technical designation of a word class [cf. 5.8.1 on the fate of terms "demoted" as it were from designating major class names]. Q 89 Words (kalim) can be a noun, a verb, or a particle (harf) that bears a meaning and which is neither noun or verb. 1.1 This seemingly simple definition of the three Arabic word classes conceals at least two subtleties, analyzed perhaps best by WeiB (1910: 375, 3 7 6 ) . Both relate to the use of the indefinite relative clauses. The second relative clause, "a particle...which is neither noun or verb", would imply that harf can otherwise stand for verb or noun; the third class consists of those harf which happen not to be nouns or verbs. That harf could also be applied to nouns and verbs is hardly surprising in the light of Farra's and Axfash's general use of the term. Examples from Sibawayh are given below. The first relative clause distinguishes harf that have a meaning from those that do not (cf. Versteegh 1977: 44, 45). The meaningful harf would include nouns, verbs and the later traditional class of particles, though also included would apparently be single bound morphemes (huruwf il-zaa'ida) which have a morphological value (Levin 1986: 436 ff.). Less clear is what exactly the nature of meaningless harf is, whether it consists of a single sound/letter or would be made up of sequences for instance. The distinction in any case adumbrates that made explicitly inter alia by Ibn Faris (87) between possible and impossible words. All in all three different 'levels' of harf emerge, as illustrated in the following diagram which numbers the levels' from 1 to 3 in the order of decreasing generality.

2

WeiB says that the first relative clause modifies harf, the second ma'naa, giving the following parsing, with brackets around the respective heads + modifying relative clauses: al-ismu wa l-fi'lu wa 1[l-harf ja'a li-2 [ma'naa]1 laysa b-ismi wa l-fi'l]2 Following Diem (322) I would rather see harf modified by two relative clauses, jaa'a li-ma'naa and laysa bi-smi wa I-fi'I. However, with Versteegh (1977: 45) I find Diem's interpretation of harf as standing for a meaning to be less than compelling. Sibawayh's coordinate reading of the modifying relative clause is clear in other places in his work, e.g. 3.8, al-huruwf illatiy laysat 'illaa li ma'naa wa laysat bi-'asmaa'wa laa 'af'aal qawluhu 'sawfa'...


harf J

harf2 harf3

247

= all possible sounds/orthographic (?)sequences (Weiß 1910: 359) = actual words/morphemes/phrases (Weiß 361) = the particle sub-class (in the formulation discussed above), not nouns or verbs

In actual practice Sibawayh has yet a fourth usage which can be glossed as "designating a limited class or sub-class". This can be a sub-class of nouns, verbs or particles, as the following examples illustrate. 1. Nouns and noun-like items a. harf = nominal verb. The nominal verbs, a closed class of items consisting of prep + object and certain other words (like ruwayda "watch out") that function like verbs are referred to as "these huruwf which are nominal verbs" (102.17, also 105.7, 106.2). b. harf = sub-class of verbal nouns. In his chapter on the verbal nouns that occur as definite topics like 'al-hamdu li llaahi "praise is God's" (137.16) he notes that "not all words (harf) of this class (i.e. verbal nouns) allow the definite article to occur with them" (also 138.2, 133.15, 138.22, 158.1, 161.15 for harf = sub-class of verbal noun). c. harf = locative. Harf identifies the sub-class of locative nouns like xalfa "behind", 'amaama "in front" and so on (177.14, also 173.12/22). d. harf = numerals. The sub-class of numerals 3-10 are called harf (252.20, also 85.7). e. harf = pronouns. A-inf pronouns are referred to as harf (332.18, 333.9, also 331.11); included here are demonstratives and disjunctive pronouns (345.1, 347.3). f. harf = interrogative nouns. Interrogative nouns like 'ayna "where", kayfa "how" (240.4) and kam "how many" (250.12) are termed harf (also 284.7, 358.16, 440.14). 2. Verbs Sub-classes of verbs are referred to much less frequently as harf than are nouns or particles, though they are at times so designated, as when verbs of "doubt" like za'ama "claim", danna "think" and hasiba "reckon" are called "harf of doubt" (337.13, also 336.23). 3. Particles Most frequently harf refers to particles, though only relatively rarely (as in 1.1 quoted above) in the sense of a generic class. Rather, as with nouns and verbs, it distinguishes a particular sub-class of particle. a. harf = coordinate particles. These are termed harf il-siraak (211.10, 264.15, 382.17).

248

APPENDIX I

b. harf = prepositions. Prepositions governing an i-inf are termed both harf jarr (244.1, 252.12, 329.14) and the harf of possession (276.16). c. harf = 'Inna. Particles that govern two nominal complements are termed harf (241.3, 244.14). d. Other sub-classes of particles that are termed harf include those of warning (tanbiyh 277.18), vocatives (283.6, 284.18), exception (314.17), governors of verbs (361.13, 363.11, 406.1) that occur sentence initially, other particles that occur sentence initially (244.12, 367.15, 391.10, 429.20), those that must be followed by a verb (407.16) and conditionals (398.8). The use of harf, like many of Sibawayh's terms, is not tied to a single meaning, namely "sub-class". On the one hand, as already noted, harf has three general meanings including "sound/letter" and "word"; on the other, the idea of "sub-class" is itself not universally designated by harf. For instance, in the line after calling verbs like danna "harf" he refers to them as "haaąjhi l-'af'aal" "these verbs" (337.14), the interrogative nouns (cf. If) are otherwise termed "nouns" (e.g. 250.13), the locatives (lc) are clearly to be understood as nouns (e.g. 175.15), and so on. A similar variation of terminology accompanies the designation of "word"; in 253.13 preposition + object are said to be of the class of (manzila) a single word ( = harf), and on the next page (254.4) of the class of a single word ( = kalírna). Despite these caveats, there are three points that support a fourth discrete meaning for harf, namely "sub-class". First, harf does with a great deal of consistency refer to what obviously are (i.e. from an independent linguistic standpoint) sub-classes of various types. Secondly Sibawayh very rarely uses the term kalima when speaking of a given sub-class of word category. Either they are referred to by their general name (cf. next point), noun or verb, or by harf + qualifying word {harf jarr, harf il-'istifhaam, etc.). Thirdly, "noun" and "verb" are, with perhaps one exception for verb (337.15), not referred to explicitly as harf when Sibawayh is speaking of these categories as a general class (except implicitly, as in the quote above). Fourthly, the generality of the term kalima as designator of word classes is apparent in Sibawayh's discussion of the number of sounds a word can have; "words" in the relevant chapter (§508, II: 330.15) are rendered as kalim and "sounds" as huruwf.3 One final remark. In the change harf = "any word", as in Farra', Axfash and other writers (cf. 9.2.2. on MN), or harf = any of a number of sub-classes (as in Sibawayh) to harf = one particular sub-class, namely "particle" one sees an example of the tendency to re-employ terms that once had a broad meaning in a narrower, more specialized function (cf. 5.8.1).

Weiß (364) notes that in one place, II: 117.11, Sibawayh uses kalima in the sense of "single letter/sound", though otherwise it is 'word' (however, cf. Levin 1986 for recent discussion of this gloss).


249

IC. The musnad and musnad 'ilayhi in Farra'

The other two places where the 'isnaad terminology occurs in the context of the Vagent relation at first glance appear to contradict the formulation given in 6.1.2. (1) (2)

bal fa'ala-hu kabiyr-u-hum but did-it big-u-their "but rather this big one of theirs did it". diqta you "You became annoyed".

haadaa this

II: 207.1

I:79.9

Q 90 [for (1)] The verb of kabiyr is placed against it [= kabiyr] (II: 207.1) [for (2)] When you have the verb [daaq] placed against "you" [musnadan 'ilayka] (I: 79.9) I interpret Farra' here as intending a fairly literal process of placing one item, the verb, against the second, the agent (cf. 6.1.3). In both cases, however, these readings require further justification. The following is Farra's explanation (not a linguistic example), which I present with a literal morpheme by morpheme translation. (3) fa ju'ila fi'lu l-kabiyrihim musnadan and made verb def-big-their placed lit. "The verb of kabiyr is made into what is rested against"

'ilayhi on-it

(3) could be interpreted "the verb of kabiyr is made [into the category of] musnad 'ilayhi". By inference kabiyruhum would be the M. I have two arguments against this, however. First, it would clearly contradict I: 79.11 (discussed in 6.1.2) where the verb is obviously the M. If the above interpretation is accepted then one has to conclude that Farra' is simply being careless and does not quite know which item is to be termed M/MI. Rather than accept this, however, I think an attempt should be made to understand a unitary terminology. The key is whether musnad 'ilayhi in (1) is used in the sense of a fixed grammatical function, where it refers to the category "MI", or whether it is used as a description of a process, "make the verb placed against it", where "it" refers to the agent, kabiyruhum. I prefer this latter interpretation for four reasons. First, as mentioned in 6.1.1/2 Farra' otherwise uses the 'isnaad terminology only as a predicate, either in verbal form ('usnada ïlaa, I: 73.13, 83.14, 119.5, II: 328.16, 'asnada II: 385.15, 'asnadta I: 258.1) or passive participle, either as a predicate of a nominal S (II: 203.15, 320.11) or as second complement of ja'ala ( = y in the formula "make x into y", I: 79.8, II: 207.1). To interpret musnad 'ilayhi in II: 207.1 as a de-adjectival noun, as would

250

APPENDIX I

be required if MI is understood as referring to the category "MI", would make it unique so far as Farra's usage goes. Secondly, related to this point, "musnad 'ilayhi" in I: 207.1 is indefinite, which contrasts with, say, Sibawayh's use of the term al-musnad 'ilayhi as a grammatical category, where Sibawayh introduces it with the definite article (6.10). Use of definite article gives it a nominal status; non-verbal predicates by contrast are nearly always indefinite, and this is what it is in II: 207.1. Thirdly, in my interpretation of (1) the -hi (of musnad 'ilay-hi) is co-referential with another item in the sentence, namely kabiyruhum, and hence "placed against it" means "placed against the agent". II: 207.1 is not the only place where the pronoun -hu in musnad 'ilay-hi is directly referential with another item in the sentence. Describing the 3 constructions in (4)

(4a)

'ax brother

(4b)

'aw or "

(4c)

"

'uxt sister

fa-l-yasilso-let-join " "

hu him haa her humaa them/2

Farra' says (I: 258.1) "you place the tafsiyr (= falyasil) against whichever of them ('asnadta 'ilaa 'ayyihimaa) you wish". Here Farra' is discussing 'isnaad in the sense of possession (cf. 6.1.1); the question for him in the alternative construction (5)

N or N + referential pro

is whether the referential pronoun should agree with the first or second noun ('ax/'uxt), Farra' answering that either (or both, dual) is possible. He says that you can place ('asnadta) the pronoun (of falyasil) against whichever of them ('ilaa 'ayyihimaa) you want, in this case the object of 'ilaa (= 'ayyihimaa) being referential to other words in the sentence ('ax/'uxt) in exactly the same way -hi of musnad 'ilay-hi refers to kabiyruhum. Fourthly, even if in (II: 207.1) musnad 'ilayhi is considered a grammatical category, the same could hardly be done for I: 79.9, where musnadan 'ilayhi can, I think, only be translated more or less literally as "placed against [the morpheme that represents] you". All things considered then, I think it can be maintained that Farra', like his contemporary Sibawayh, used M as the first term of a specified relation, MI as the second. A methodological point that I hope to have reinforced in this appendix is to have drawn attention to the danger of interpreting the grammatical terminology of one generation in terms of that of another. II: 207.1 in particular invites the equivalence of Farra's musnad 'ilayhi with the musnad 'ilayhi of later theory. Closer reading of the text, and comparison with other usages of the term in Farra', however, show such an association to be unjustified.


251

ID. The term şagala

To begin the discussion I give a fairly complete listing of examples where Sibawayh uses the şagala terminology; a line marks the items that are in a şagala relation and an "x" over the item that is left out of the given şagala relation. (1) u-inflectional relations

x

(A i)

daraba 'abdullaahi hit Abdullah "Abdullah hit Zayd".

zayd-an zayd

(A ii)

siyra 'alayhi farsax-aani yawmayni traveled on-him farsax-2/u days-2 "For two farsax it was traveled with him for two days".

(A iii)

kaana zayd-un was Zayd-u "Zayd was wealthy".

(A iv)

kusiya 'abdu llaahi 0awb-an dressed Abdullah garment-a "Abdullah was dressed in a garment".

(A v)

duriba bi-hi darb-an hit by-it hitting-a "With it was hit a weak blow".

(Avi)

dahaba zayd-un went Zayd-u "Zayd went".

10.15

(A vii)

duriba 'abdu llaahi hit Abdullah "Abdullah was hit".

10.15

x

x

taajir-an wealthy-a

93.20

17.11

x

x

(B)

10.22 (also 31.15)

14.17

x

daraba-niy wa darab-tu-hum hit-me and hit-I-them "They1 hit me and I hit them, your people1".

da'iyf-an weak-a

qawm-u-ka people-u-your

97.1

30.9

252

APPENDIX I

(2) a-inflectional form (i)

(ii)

(iii)

x 'a kull-a l-yawm-i laka py-hi Q every-a day-i to you in-it "Is it every day that you have a garment in it"? x zayd-an Zayd-a "As for Zayd, hit him".

idrib-hu hit-him

49.3

0awb-un garment-u

61.7

'ammaa 0amuwd-u fa as for Thamud and "As for the Thamud, we guided them" (cf. also II: 258.18)

haday-naa-hum guided-we-them

31.21

(3) i-inflection x

(i)

rubba rajul-in many man-i "many a man and his brother"

(ii)

maa neg

marar-tu pass-I

x 'amr-un Amr-u

xayr-un better-u

(a)

(b)

wa and bi by

'axiy-hi brother-his 'ahad-in one-i

min than

209.20

'illaa except

zayd-in zayd-i

x 'amr-in xayr-in min zayd-in -i -i (a) "I did not pass by anyone, only Amr (did), who is better than Zayd". (b) "I didn't pass by anyone except Amr, who is better than Zayd".

324.11

(4) conditional (i)

'inna man ya'tiy-niy aatiy-hu 390.8 indeed whoever come-u-me I come-u-him "Indeed whoever comes to me, I will come to him". x

(n)

'inna-hu man ya'ti-niy na'ti-hi indeed-it whoever come-0-me we come-0-him "Indeed whoever comes to me, we will come to him".

253


In (1) the verb is the item associated with an u-inf noun. In (Ai-v) there are two of more nouns that relate to the verb, but it is the one that is associated (maşguwl), of construed as being in such a position as in (v), with the verb that takes the u-inflection of agent. In the case of (vii) it would appear that the object takes u-inf by default, there being no other complement present to take this inflectional form. In (1B) the second verb darab- is associated with the agent and object suffixes -tu and -hum and since darab is a verb that takes only one agent and object, the complement qawmuka must be related to the first verb, darabaniy, which otherwise would have no overt agent. (2 i, ii) have an initial a-inf complement that is analyzed as being governed by an understood verb. It cannot be related to the following constituent (2i ftyhi, 2 ii 'idrib) since this constituent already is associated (maşguwl) with a pronominal object which it governs. In (3i) 'axiyhi cannot occur directly as dependent on rubba since this only takes an indefinite complement; however, as soon as rubba is associated with (maşguwl) an indefinite noun (rajulin), the 'pseudo-definite' noun 'axiy- can occur as a coordinate dependent of rubba. This is the one context where sagala relates to the determination of sequence. [I term 'axiy pseudo-definite because 'axiy- is, in fact, definite by position, being possessed by a definite pronoun -hu. This pronoun, however, refers to an indefinite noun. Sibawayh considers this type of definiteness to be the same class as that of mi0lu-ka.] In (3 ii) both verb and preposition are "associated" with a governed item (tu/'ahadin respectively), and the exception can occur as a substitute (badal) for either subject or object of preposition. The last example pertains to the question of the 0-form in conditional complements. In (4i), where 'inna governs man (its ism), man cannot govern a 0-form verb but rather has the status of a relative pronoun, which never serve as verbal governor. The verb form is indicative (u-form). In (4ii) 'inna governs the anticipatory pronoun (damiyr al-sa'n, cf. 8.2.2) -hu. Sibawayh explains that 'inna is associated with -hu, and this leaves man free to govern the 0-form just as the conditional particle 'in "if does. (5a/b) represent the relevant governance relations.

[sila of man] (5a)

'inna indeed

man whoever

[ya'ti-y-niy] come-u-me

[conditional S (5b)

v 'inna-hu indeed-it

[man whoever

aati-y-hi I come-u-him ]

ya'ti-niy comes-0-me

na'ti-hi]s we come-0-him

254

APPENDIX I

In (4i) man takes priority in the syntactic relation to 'inna, but as soon as another item, hu does so man is free to contract others relations, as in (4ii). Though he does not say so explicitly, the reason for the restriction of man as governor in (4i) is presumably to prevent an item from having two governors: in (4i) the dependent comment of 'inna is aatiyhu; if however aatiyhu were also governed by the conditional noun it would have two governors (and a conflict of inflectional form), an impossible situation. The concept of şagala thus does not pertain to a fixed set of forms or constructions. Although the majority of its uses describe the verb-agent relation, it cannot simply be translated, for example, as "V-subject agreement". When Sibawayh does discuss general rules of agreement (§ 111) he nowhere uses the term şagala. Nor, however, does he always use the term where he could. Al-0awbu in (6)

kusiya l-Qawb-u dressed garment-u "The garment was put on".

15.19

is said to be of the class (manzila) of the agent, but unlike other places where the passive verb is discussed the verb is not said to "sagala" al-0awbu. This last comment is not meant as a criticism, for Sibawayh has already established in what terms he understands an object's assuming u-inflectional form (cf. 7.3.1). It is, however, relevant to bear in mind that verb-subject agreement falls within a broader framework of syntactic priority. Without exemplification, Axfash's use of sagala can be noted to correspond roughly to Sibawayh's, containing the idea of establishing claim to priority of grammatical relation, and again ranging across different sorts of syntactic relations. (7) U-inf: V-subject:

A-inf

57.5 (exception) 158.5 (passive) 159.9 (passive) 464.3 (passive

76.9 (covert verb in şagala relation with overt pro) 525.10 ('istigaal relation of pronoun in overt verb)

I-inf 209.13 N + possessor + specifier Farra' uses the terminology in at least one place as well (cf. 3.6.2.5). (8a)

haadaa l-'asad-u this def-lion "This lion is perilous".

maxuwf-un perilous-a


255

x

(8b)

haadaa l-'asad-u this def-lion-u "(Behold) the lion perilous".

maxuwf-an perilous-a

Farra' contrasts (8a) with (8b). In (8a) maxuwfun is predicate to haadaa with 'asadu qualifier (na't) to the demonstrative. One here is talking about a particular lion. In (8b) the comment l-'asadu and topic haadaa are in a mutually governing relation; the meaning describes a prototypical trait about the lion, one that is unique to it (laa nadiyra lahu, I: 12.13); as Farra' puts it, "'lion' is associated (sugila) with the demonstrative haadaa as its predicate, and the predicate maxuwfan is made a-inf as a [syntactically, Baalbaki 1983: 15] extraneous item" (13.1). sagala again appears with the meaning of syntactic priority: in (8b) l-'asadu take priority as predicate of haadaa and this forces maxuwfan to assume ainf form. Without attempting a thorough proof, I would suggest that in later grammarians the term sagala fell out of use, except in the conventionalized 'istigaal meaning (8.2.3.3), the construction in which a fronted a-inf noun is followed by a sentence containing a coreferential resumptive pronoun (like (2 ii) above), sagala still occurs in its original sense in later writers, though it becomes increasingly rare. Lughda (224 = bi + N, 242 = conditional, like (4) above), uses it on two occasions and Mubarrid uses sagala in the sense of syntactic priority in at least three instances. For example, in discussing (9)

'a'jaba-niy darb-u pleased-me hitting-u "Zayd's hitting Amr pleased me".

zayd-in Zayd-i

'amr-an Amr-a

Mubarrid says "you involve (tastagilu) the 'idaafa with the verb, and make 'amran a-inf form". It is noteworthy, however, that Mubarrid uses sagala only when one of the masguwl items is a verb, and indeed in the other two places he uses the term (II: 76, IV: 328) it is similar to the conventional topicalization constructions of the later grammarians' 'istigaal. In Sarraj (II: 40) I have found the term used in discussing only one example (= (3 i) above). Zajjaji (Jumal: 39) uses it only in the sense of the istigaal construction, and this then becomes its conventional domain, sagala in the sense of "give priority to a certain syntactic relation" was very likely a trait of the earlier era of Arabic grammatical theory. Its demise can be understood relative to the decreasing use of substitution techniques. sagala represented an operational tool for interpreting grammatical form and substitution techniques and related methodologies declined dramatically in the post-Sibawayh era, so the use of this methodological device lost its importance in the face of a standardization of grammatical categories.

IE. Noun Complementation Citations in Axfash

sifa: 17.8, 88.3, 88.12, 103.11, 157.13, 194.7, 206.5/12, 218.9/14, 242.11, 244.12, 270.10, 291.12, 300.10, 321.7, 339.9, 357.13, 385.13, 386.3, 443.11, 451.2, 461.10, 488.7, 514.4.

256

APPENDIX I

badal: 17.3, 18.4, 29.10, 45.2, 68.14, 96.5, 124.11, 139.4, 141.8, 147.7, 150.1/11, 192.2, 195.10, 196.7/12, 198.9, 241.11, 275.13, 278.10, 289.5, 313.13, 365.4, 380.7, 384.10, 416.5, 426.7, 450.2, 462.2, 475.6, 476.6, 481.4, 508.3, 513.5, 539.9, 541.3, 549.2. 'af. 19.6, 24.1, 34.4, 59.1, 80.4, 141.5/8/12, 144.17, 149.13, 153.2, 159.13, 160.11, 179.7, 2022.4, 204.7, 208.10, 210.11, 215.7, 239.6, 241.10, 247.6, 257.8, 259.2, 260.4, 261.14, 266.5, 267.7, 273.10, 300.8, 305.5, 307.2, 336.7, 440.4, 491.9. tawkiyd: 219.1, 246.5, 382.5. tabťa: 42.9, 44.12, 44.9, 50.8, 218.15, 255.2, 260.7.

IF. Page references to §7.1.4

Farra's term tarjama

takriyr

= later terminology repetition of word II: 103.11 substitute: II: 178.9 specifier: II: 104.3 repetition 287.17

of

word:

I:

45.6,

177.5,

470.16,

II:

73.3,

HI:

259.8,

substitute: I: 7.6, 51.2, 56.11, 112.15 (cf. editoťs n. 4), 207.7, 316.1, 427.14 II: 27.1 (cf. editoťs n. 1), 32.2, 178.8, 210.13 (211.1), 291.15, 360.6, 382.11, III: 279.12 tafsiyr

substitute: 273.7

I:

348.7,

II:

58.10

(?),

69.6,

77.5,

113.13,

198.11,

haal: I: 73.6 (?), 193.10 specifier: I: 55.14, 57.9 (?), 79.5, 169.6, 225.14 256.4, 314.1, 320.13, II: 33.6, 136.4, 137.15, 137.17, 141.1, 157.10, 159.2, 166.7, 308.15, 341.10 reason object (maf'uwl lahu): I: 17.11, II: 157.11 (?) tafsiyr

other: I: 103.12 (min

= tafsiyr), II: 69.4 (4 citations

=

"explain,

clarify"), 246.13 (= S), 178.9 (?). haal

haal: I: 193.5, 301.16, 302.2, 309.9, H: 104.2, 216.1, 425.6

qať

haal: I: 7.8, 12.4, 193.12, 207.8, 305.2, 313.8, 328.16 348.13, 358.9, 377.1, 380.6,444.2, E: 6.10, 70.11 (= 'inqata'), 98.13, 207.9, 210.12,


257

250.12, 286.5, 325.1, 326.12, 380.10, 425.6, III: 6.14, 11.16,51.16, 104.14, 133.1, 205.4, 282.3, 298.15 fi'l

haal I: 13.10 ?() II: 273.8, III: 279.12

IG. Inflectional form and function of governed item in Farra's 'iyqaa' relation, volume I

(covert = uninflected items said to be in the function of a-inf, u-inf, etc., and to be in the 'iyqaa' relation). a-inf, object, overt case form: 17.9, 40.2, 46.14, 79.6, 93.3, 100.13, 108.6, 113.1, 121.6, 137.7, 165.17, 180.1, 211.1, 376.7, 395.2, 415.1 a-inf, object, covert: 80.6, 97.12, 138.10, 200.18, 210.13, 211.1, 222.11, 240.13, 397.7 u-inf, subject, overt case form: 137.7 u-inf, subject, covert: 139.1, 146.12 i-inf, overt case form: 137.7, 318.11 i-inf, covert: 306.9 any inflectional form, verb: 469.13

IH. References to Basra, Kufa and individual linguists in Tha'lab's Majaalis.

Farra' alone: 13, 98, 102, 120, 128, 117, 159, 160, 164, 165, 168, 169, 224, 263, 267, 274, 343, 371, 373, 378, 387, 395, 397, 399, 439, 446, 456, 474, 529, 556, 560, 588, 589 Kisa'i alone: 60, 61, 100, 101, 105, 119, 141, 227, 266, 271, 273, 309, 324, 446, 476, 540, 579, 582 Farra' and Kisa'i: 60, 62, 65, 83, 87, 102, 124, 262, 267, 310, 313, 403, 419, 526, 527, 582 Reference to Basra alone: 58, 249, 419, 552, 557, 590, 597 Reference to Sibawayh alone: 275, 445 Axfash: 447, 584, 591, 592 Mazini 272,273,540 "Our friends", 'ashaabuna: 363, 409, 596 Basra, Farra'and/or Kisa'i 44, 124, 216, 217, 403 Basra and "our friends": 127, 196 Basra and "we" (nahnu): 133

258

APPENDIX I

Sibawayh and Axfash: 57 Sibawayh and Kufa: 106, 359 Sibawayh and his friends and Farra': 586 Sibawayh, Xalil and their friends: 42 Sibawayh, Basra, and nahnu: 178 Mazini and Farra': 540 Kisa'i or Farra' + our friends: 174, 265, 275 Farra', Kisa'i, Xalil: 310 Farra', Kisa'i, Sibawayh: 42 (includes reference to Xalil), 105, 354, 359, 389, 445-446.

U. References to Basrans and Kufans in first two volumes of Zajjaj's MQ.

Reference only to Basrans: I: 25, 64, 65, 71, 92, 94, 155, 351, 355, 451, 507, II: 10 (2), 70, 103, 107 135 (+ Medineans), 144, 154, 187, 239, 248, 338, 353, 462 Reference only to Kufans: I: 265, 280 ( + 'ahl al-hijaaz), 296/297, II: 42 (critical of them), 270 (critical), 385 (critical) Basrans and Kufans cited in same context, no important difference of opinion between them: I: 37, 98, 247, 312, 353 (+ 'ashaab al-hadiy0), 373, 430, 446, 463, II: 135, 188/189, 233/234 Basrans and Kufans cited in same context and difference of opinion noted: I: 309 (no decision), 374/375 (no decision), II: 218 (critical of Kufans), 219 (critical of Kufans), 301 (most Kufans agree with grammarians), 336 (critical of Kufans) References to Farra' or Kisa'i I: 107 (Farra' in error), 135 (Sibawayh preferred over Kisa'i) II: 147 (mildly critical), 212/213 (critical) References to grammarians, nahwiyyuwna: I: 20, 21, 22, 25, 27 (2), 28, 29 (2), 30, 44, 64, 65, 98, 99, 100, 104, 113, 123, 130, 133/134, 135, 139, 143, 149, 186, 190, 205, 208, 211, 216, 221, 238, 232, 246, 262, 280, 289, 291, 292, 293, 323, 365, 395, 396, 400, 402, 403, 405, 416, 425, 438, 443, 450, 451, 459, 463, 474, 486, 488, 497 II: 2, 5, 8, 33, 51, 60, 80, 82, 85, 89, 90, 94, 95, 133, 136, 137, 143, 144, 179, 181, 190, 242, 270, 301, 345, 349, 353, 358, 391, 404, 408, 451, 453, 455, 480, 486, 490, 492, 494


259

References to 'ahl al-luga: I: 20, 25, 26, 51, 56, 64, 108, 248, 258, 296, 297, 298, 322, 327, 361, 364, 380, 423, 443, 469, 470, 483 II: 21, 43, 58, 59, 62, 64 Others ('ahl al hijaaz/'ahl al-'ilm/'ahl al-tafsiyr etc.): I: 13, 54, 92, 117, 220, 251, 280, 296/297, 353, 388, 439, 472, II: 4 (2), 24, 96, 97, 135, 148, 159, 212

Totals

Basrans: 43 citations cited alone: 25 with Kufans: 18 agree with Kufans: 12 disagree: 6 Kufans (including 4 references to Kisa'i/Farra'): 29 cited alone: 7 Farra', Kisa'i: 4 cited with Basra: 18 agree with Basrans: 12 disagree: 6 Zajjaj critical of Kufans (excluding Farray,/Kisa'i): 6 Zajjaj critical of FarrayKisa'i: 4 Nahwiyyuwna, grammarians: 102 'Ahl al-luga: 28 others: 21

APPENDIX II ARABIC QUOTES

262

APPENDIX II


263

264

APPENDIX II

•««J^cVI (j-ô îûaôJl J j ^ l j La l øft^» h dJU fl^âiVI

no ^ « N ^ LoJl rtAfl »A )l *L*UMVI AJ s-i-ua^j V A.t.AA.jl U fjU «S-tóJl I j Ij-A Li» O-IS LĎJJ 3 LoJLi «tjjJLA^l ' V 5 A U » JJ>2-1 J ^ £ i <jl C»Jjl Ul ^ M V I ^ J X . LfilaX. 3I V j J <J>*L* • ^ M I V I ^Jjt o i i j ( j ^ U J Í '

VA * J-AÍ». A Í J J U U J 3 4 Í iLwo S j < t l ) <jl£ i _ ^ J I <jl ^ i c l 3 • T i o ^jd «N £ ' j ü j i j n i » n ( j > ^ * O' v ^ *-ÔJ c***á^ 3 j-0-ûxôJl (j-6 V J - J ( j > ^ i O- J > ^ * JA»ÔA,)I IjuA (ji ^ i c l 3 J j ^ J l L o l i « j j j U I U ^ J L I uLo^Jl ( j U i S > ^ Y l J * ^ ! <jl j>-2*Ti V 3 -«LftJ-^1 • \j-££ <jL£i AÔbMil <J I^Jikjl £ Í l j 3I ijÂûLi*. 3I J j V ! l$J*oj

• A J J X J ^ i f >r*-U Ü u G ci^-uSJÜl Jjlâti *WJLUDLC ^5^ ^ ^ J U J

>J 4Ü)fl J KSČ ^

ÍAJ

J S*^ Já3^ U J ^ ^ v > ^ : 6 * ^ Ï • " 3 < Ü ^ J L: * JÜ ft ^ } ) J*^» * U l i j fj\S «(>»» A-î-ô Ù X j i

NA ^ . J Ü J k V I - T l J ^ J AJ juaw V 4iUV «iílJi* J ^ J J » j , * > î U J U ««íUlt J ^ > J L i > o Ü ^ 1 » CÜ2 U j VI ÍJ V $ * V J - J A Í * a a (ji V I ^ > V $ * AIAJU • J J J J I , ^ l t V I «4iUlt J - * > J O j > o » J$AJ> V AJÎ ^ > 2


265

266

APPENDIX II


267

268

APPENDIX II


269

270

APPENDIX II

A R A B I C GRAMMAR: THE E R A OF HETEROGENEITY

271

APPENDIX HI GRAMMARIANS CITED AS SOURCES

Grammarian

Active in

Dates

Xalil bin Ahmad Sibawayh Xalaf al-Ahmar Kisa'i Farra' Axfash

Basra Basra Basra (?) Kufa Baghdad/Kufa Baghdad

Jarmi Mazini Sijistani Mubarrid Tha'lab Ibn Kaysan

Baghdad Baghdad Baghdad Baghdad Baghdad Baghdad

Zajjaj Lughda Sarraj Shuqayyir (?) Mujahid Anbari (Abu Bakr) Ibn Wallad Nahhas Zajjaji

Baghdad Baghdad Baghdad Baghdad Baghdad Baghdad Egypt Egypt Baghdad

Farisi Zubaydi Rummani Ibn al-Nadim Ibn Jinni Saymari Qaysi Ibn Barhan Jurjani Batalyusi Zamaxshari

Baghdad Spain Baghdad Baghdad Baghdad/Mosul/Aleppo Baghdad/Egypt Tunisia/Spain Baghdad Rey (Persia) Spain Baghdad/Mawrad (Persia)

175/791 177/793 180/796 183/799 207/822 215/830 or 221/835 225/839 249/863 255/868 285/898 291/904 299/911 or 320/932 311/923 311/923 316/928 318/930 324/935 328/939 332/943 338/950 337/949 or 340/951 377/987 379/988 384/994 385/995 393/1002 early 5 t h /11 t h 437/1045 456/1063 471/1078 521/1127 538/1154

274 Anbari (Abu 1-Barakat) Sakkaki Ibn Ya'ish Astarabadi Ibn Hisham Suyuti Shirbini

APPENDIX III

Baghdad

577/1187

Xwarzim (Uzbekistan) Baghdad/Aleppo Persia/Mecca Egypt Egypt Egypt

626/1228 643/1245 686/1286 761/1360 911/1505 979/1570

REFERENCES

Primary Sources

MQ = al-'Axfash, Abu Hasan. Mďaaniy l-Qur'aan. Ed. by Fa'iz Faris. Kuwait, 1979. al-'Astarabadi, Radi 1-Din. Sarh Kitaab al-Kaafvya. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya (no date). Batalyusi, Abu Muhammad. Kitaab al-Hulal fiy Islaah al-Xalal min 'Kitaab al-JumaV. Ed. by Sa'id Sa'udi. Baghdad: Wizarat al-Thaqafa wa 1-'I'lam, 1982. al-Farisi, Abu 'Ali. (a) Al-'Iydaah. (text in Jurjani a). 'Aqsam = al-Farisi, Abu 'Ali. (b) 'Aqsaam al-Axbaar. Ed. by 'Ali Mansuri. Al-Mawrid. 7/3: 201-220, 1978. 'Askariyaat = al-Farisi, Abu 'Ali. (c) Al-Masaa'il al-'Askariyaat fiy l-Nahw al-Arabiy. Ed. by 'Ali 1-Mansuri. Baghdad: Baghdad University, 1982. al-Farra', Abu Zakariyya. (a) Mďaaniy l-Qur'aan. Ed. by M. 'Ali 1-Najjar and A. Yusuf Najati. Beirut: 'Alam al-Kutub, 1983. MM - al-Farra', Abu Zakariyya. (b) Al-Mudakkar wa l-MuannaQ. Ed. by R. al-Tawwab. Cairo: Dar al-Turath. 1975. al-Farra' (c) Al-Manquws wa l-Mamduwd. Ed. by 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Rajuti. Cairo, 1967. 'Insaaf = Ibn al-Anbari, Abu 1-Barakat. (a) Kitaab al-'lnsaaf fi Masaa'il al-Xilaaf bayna lNahwiyyiyna l-Basriyyiyna wa l-Kufiyyiyna. Ed. by M. 'Abd al-Hamid. Beirut: Dar alFikr. (no date). 'Asraar = Ibn al-Anbari. (b) Asraar al-'Arabiyya. ed. by M. al-Bitar. Damascus: al-'Ilmi 1'Arabi, 1957. Alifaat = Ibn al-'Anbari, Abu Bakr. (a) Kitaab al-Alifaat. Ed. by 'Ali 1-Hamad. Majallat AbhaaQ Jaami'at al-Yarmuwk. 3/1: 7-44,1985. KMM - Ibn al-'Anbari, Abu Bakr. (b) Kitaab al-Mudakkar wa 1-MuannaQ. Ed. by Tariq al-Janabi. Beirut: Dar al-Ra'id al-'Arabi, 1986. Ibn 'Aqil, Biha' al-Din. Sarh Ibn Aqiyl. Ed. by. M. Abd al-Hamid. (no date).

276

REFERENCES

Ibn Faris, Ahmad. Al-Saahibi fry Fiqh al-Lugha. Ed. by A. Saqr. Cairo: Maktabat 'Isa Bab al-Halabi. (n.d.). Ibn Hajib, Jamal al-Din. Al-Iydaah fi Şarh al-Mufassal. Ed. by M. El-Aleeli. Baghdad: Wizarat al- 'Awqaf, 1982. Ibn Hisham, Abu Muhammad. (a) Qatr al-Nadaa wa Ball al-Sadaa. Ed. by M. 'Abd alHamid. Beirut: Maktabat al-Mathana, 1963. Ibn Hisham, Abu Muhammad. (b). Mughniy l-Labiyb 'an Kutub al-'A'aariyb. Ed. by M. Mubarak. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1969. Xas = Ibn Jinni, Abu 1-Fath. (a)Al-Xasaa'is. Ed. by Muhammad 'Ali 1-Najjar. Cairo, 195256. (Reproduced, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-'Arabi, n. d.). Luma' = Ibn Jinni, Abu 1-Fatah. (b) Al-Luma' fiy l-Arabiyya. Ed. by Husayn Sharaf. Beirut: 'Alam al-Kutub, 1979. Ibn Jinni, Abu 1-Fatah. (c) Al-Mudakkar wa l-Mu'anna0. Cairo, 1983. Ibn Kaysan, Abu l-Hasan. Kitaab al-Muwaffaqiy fry l-Nahw. Ed. by 'Abd al-Husayn al-Fatli and H. Thalathi. Al-Mawrid. 103-124, 1975. Ibn Mujahid, Abu Bakr. Kitaab al-Sab'a fi l-Qiraa'aat. Ed. by Shawqi 1-Dayf. Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif, 1979. Ibn al-Nadim, Muhammad. Al-Fihrist. Beirut: Dar al-Ma'rifa, 1978. (no editor) al-Qur'aan. Dar al-Ma'arif, Cairo. 1984 Sarraj = Ibn al-Sarraj, Abu Bakr Muhammad. Al-'Usuwl fiy l-Nahw. Ed. by 'Abd alHusayn al-Fatli. Beirut: Mu'assasat al-Risala, 1985. Ibn 'Usfur al-'Ishbili, Abu l-Hasan. Şarh Jurnal al-Zajjaajiy. Ed. by. S. Abu 1-Janah. Baghdad: Wizarat al-'Awqaf, 1980. IY = Ibn Ya'ish, Ibn 'Ali. Şarh al-Mufassal. Cairo: Maktabat al-Mutanabbi and Beirut: 'Alam al-Kutub (n. d., no editor). Muqt = Jurjani, 'Abd al-Qahir. (a) Al-Muqtasid fi Sarh al-Iydaah. Ed. by K. B. al-Murjan. Baghdad: Ministry of Culture and Information, 1982. — Jurjani, 'Abd al-Qahir. (b) Dalaa'il al-Tjaaz. Ed. by Muhammad Rida. Beirut: Dar alMa'rifa, 1978. — Jurjani, 'Abd al-Qahir. (c) Al-Jumal. Damascus. (no date) KJN Kitaab al-Jumal fry l-Nahw. Ed. by Faxradin Qabawa. Beirut. Lughda, Abu 'Ali. Kitaab al-Nahw. Ed. by. 'Abd al-Husayn al-Fatli. Al-Mawrid 3/3: 221246, 1974.


277

Mub = al-Mubarrad, Ibn Yazid. (a) Al-Muqtadab. Ed. by M. 'Abd al-Xaliq 'Udayma. Beirut: 'Alam al-Kutub (no date). al-Mubarrad, Ibn Yazid. (b) Al-Kaamil fiy l-Lugha wa l-'Adaab. Maktabat al-Ma'arif. Beirut. (n. d., no editor). MN = Muqaddima fiy l-Nahw. Ed. by. 'Azz al-Din al-Tanuxi. Damascus, 1961. Nahhas, Abu Ja'far. Traab al-Quťaan. Ed. by Zuhayr Zahid. Baghdad: Wizarat al-Awqaf, 1977. Al-Qaysi, Abu Talib. Kitaab Masakkil Traab al-Quťaan. Damascus: Dar al-Ma'mun li-1-Turath (n. d.).

Ed. By Yasin al-Suwas.

Qutrub, Muhammad . MuQalla0at Qutrub. Ed. by Al-Tahir al-Zawi. Beirut: Dar al-Fath li 1-Tiba'a, 1984. al-Rumâni, Abu l-Hasan. Kitaab al-Huduwd fiy l-Nahw. Ed. by Mustafa Jawad and Yusuf Maskuni. Al-Mu'assasat al-'Ama li-1-Sahafa wa 1-Tiba'a. Baghdad, 1979. al-Saymari, Abu Muhammad. Al-Tabsira wa l-Tadkira. Ed. by F. 'Ali 1-Din. Makka: Umm al-Qura University, 1982. Sibawayh, Ibn 'Uthman. Al-Kitaab. Ed. by. H. Derenbourg. Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms, 1970. Sijistani, Abu Xatim. Kitaab Al-Addaad. 'Ilmiyya. Beirut, 1973.

Ed. by. August Haffner. Dar al-Kutub al-

Shirbini, Muhammad. Nuwr as-Saajiyya fi Hall Alfaad al-Ajuruwmiyya. Ed. by Michael Carter. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1981. (= Carter, Arabic Linguistics). Suyuti, Jalal al-Din. (a) Bugyat al-Wu'aah. Ed. by Muhammad Ibrahim. Beirut: Dar alFikr, 1979. Ham' = Suyuti, Jalal al-Din. (b) Ham' al-Hawaami' Jam' al-Jawaami'. Ed. by M. alNa'sani. Beirut: Dar al-Ma'rifa, n. d. AN = Suyuti, Jalal al-Din. (c)Al-Asbaah wa l-Nadaa'ir. Ed. by Fayiz Tarhini. Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al 'Arabi. 1984. Iqtiraah = Suyuti, Jalal al-Din. (d) Kitaab al-'Iqtiraah fiy 'Ilm Vsuwl al-Nahw. Ed. by Ahmad Qasim. Cairo: Matba'at Sa'ada. 1976. Tha'lab, Abu l-'Abbas. Majaalis. Ed. by. 'Abd al-Salam Haruna. Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif (no date). Al-'Ukbari, Ibn Barhan. Sarh al-Luma'. Ed. by Fa'iz Faris. Kuwayt: Al-Silsila 1-Turathiyya, 1984.

278

REFERENCES

Zaj = Zajjaj, Abu Ishaq Ma'aaniy l-Qur'aan wa Traabuhu. ed. by 'Abd al-Xalil Shilbi. Beirut: Maktabat al-'Asriyya, 1973. 'Iydaah = al-Zajjaji, Abu 1-Qasim. (a) Al-Tydaah fiy 'Ilal al-Nahw. Ed. by. M. al-Mubarak. Beirut: Dar al-Nafa'is, 1979. Jumal= al-Zajjaji, Abu 1-Qasim. (b) Al-Jumal fiy l-Nahw. Ed. by 'Ali 1-Hamad. Irbid: Dar al.'Amal and Beirut: Mu'assasat al-Risala, 1984. al-Zamaxshari, Abu 1-Qasim. Al-Mufassal fiy 'Ilm al-Arabiyya. Beirut: Dar al-Jil (no date). al-Zubaydi, Abu Bakr. (a) Kitaab al-Waadih. Ed. by 'Abd al-Karim Xalifa. 1976. (no place or publisher). — al-Zubaydi, Abu Bakr (b). ¥abaqaat al-Nahwiyyiyna wa l-Lugawiyyiyna. Ed. by Muhammad Ibrahim. Cairo: Dar al-Ma'rifa, 1973.

Secondary Sources

Abbreviations BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies CHAG Second Colloquium for the History of Arabic Grammar, Nijmegen JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society ZAL Zeitschrift fur arabische Linguistik ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft

'Abd Allah, Ahmad. 1984. The Variant Readings of the Our'an: a Critical Study of their Historical and Linguistic Origins. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh. Ansari, Ahmad. 1964. Abuw Zakariyya al-Farra' wa Madhabuhu fiy l-Nahw wa l-Luga. Cairo: Nashr al-Rasa'il al-Jami'iyya. Ayoub, Georgine. 1987. "Du Statut de 'ce qui ne se dit pas' dans le livre de Sibawayh ou d'un comme si...". CHAG paper. Baalbaki, Ramzi. 1979. "Some Aspects of Harmony and Hierarchy in Sibawayh's Grammatical Analysis. ZAL 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 Ihsan Abbas. ed. by Widad al-Qadi 1-26. Beirut: American University.


279

Baalbaki, R. 1983. "A Difficult Passage in Farra's Ma'aaniy l-Qur'aan". Bulletin d'Études Orientales. 35. 13-18. — 1985. "The Treatment of the Qiraa'aat by the Second and Third Century Grammarians". ZAL 15. 11-32. Beck, Edmund. 1945. "Der 'uthmanische Kodex in der Koranlesung des zweiten Jahrhunderts". Orientalia N.S. XIV. 355-73. — 1946. "'Arabiyya, Sunna und 'Amraa in der Koranlesung des zweiten Jahrhunderts". Orientalia N. S. XV. 180-224. — 1947. "Die Kodizevarianten der Amsar". Orientalia N. S XVI. 353-76. — 1948. "Studien zur Jahrhunderten. — 1950. "Studien zur Jahrhundreten.

Geschichte der kufischen Koranlesung in den beiden ersten I". Orientalia N. S. XVII. 326-54. Geschichte der kufischen Koranlesung in den beiden ersten II". Orientalia N. S. XIX. 328-50.

— 1951. "Studien zur Geschichte der kufischen Koranlesung in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten. III". Orientalia N. S. XX. 316-28. — 1953. "Studien zur Geschichte der kufischen Koranlesung in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten. IV". Orientalia N. S. XXII. 59-78. — 1954. "Die Zuverlässigkeit der Überlieferung von ausser'uthmanischen Varianten bei al-Farra'". Orientalia N. S. XXIII. 412-35. Belguedj, Mohammad. 1973. "La Demarche des Premiers Grammariens dans le Domaine de la Syntaxe". Arabica 20. 168-185. Bernards, Moniek. 1987. "The Position of al-Jarmi between Sibawayh and al-Mubarrad". CHAG paper. Block, Ariel. 1986. Studies in Arabic Syntax and Semantics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bobzin, Hartmut. 1983. "Zum Begriff der 'Valenz' des Verbums in der arabischen Nationalgrammatik", in K. Versteegh, K. Koerner and H-J Niederehe, 1983, 93108. Bohas, Georges and Jean-Patrick Guillaume. 1984. Etudes des Théories des Grammairiens Arabes. Damascus: Institut Francais de Damas. Burton, John. 1977. The Collection of the Qur'an. Cambridge: CUP. Carter, Michael. 1972a. "Twenty Dirhams in the Kitaab of Sibawayh". BSOAS 35. 485-98. — 1972b. "Les Origines de la Grammaire Arabe". Revue des Études Islamiques 40. 69-97. — 1973a. "An Arabie Grammarian of the Eighth Century A. D.". JAOS 93. 146-57.

280

REFERENCES

Carter, M. 1973b. "Sarf et Xilaaf: Contribution à la Grammaire Arabe". Arabica 20. 292304. — 1981. Arabic Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. — 1983. "The Use of Proper Names as a Testing Device in Sibawayh's Kitaab". in Versteegh, Koerner and Niederehe 1983, 109-120. ~ 1985a. "The Term Sabab in Arabic Grammar". ZAL 15. 53-66. — 1985b. "When did the Arabic Word Nahw First Come to Denote Grammar?" Language and Communication 5. 265-272. Dahdal, Naser. 1977. "Al-Haal bei Omar bin Othman bin Qunbur Sibawayh verglichen mit Abu 1-Kasim Mahmud bin Omar Zamachshari. MA Thesis, Erlangen University. Dévényi, Kinga. 1987. "Al-Farra's linguistic Methods in his Work Ma'aani l-Qur'aan". CHAG paper. Diem, Werner. 1970/71. "Nomen, Substantiv und Adjektiv bei den arabischen Grammatikern". Oriens 23/24. 312-333. — 1980 "Untersuchungen zur frühen Geschichte der arabischen Orthographie. IL Die Schreibung der Konsonanten". Orientalia 49: 67-106. Ditters, Everhard. 1987. "Corpus Linguistics and Traditional Grammatical Analysis". CHAG paper. Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 1985. "The Chapter on Grammar in the Kitaab Mafaatiyh al 'Uluwm". ZAL. 15. 94-103. Fleisch, Henri. 1957. "Esquisse d'un Historique de la Grammaire Arabe". Arabica 4. 1-22. Fück Joseph, 1950. Arabiyya. Berlin: Akadamie Verlag. Gätje, Helmut ed. 1987. Grundriß der arabischen Philologie. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Goldenberg, Gideon. 1988. "Subject and Predicate in Arab Grammatical Tradition". ZDMG 138. 39-73. Götz, Manfred. 1957. Der Charakter der Prosa Belege bei Sibawaih. PhD Thesis, Munich University. Haarman, Ulrich. 1974. "Religioses Recht und Grammatik im klassischen Islam". ZDMG 12, supplement II. 149-169. Iványi, Tamas. 1987. "On the Beginnings of Linguistic Thinking with the Arabs: A Case of Interaction Between Linguistic Situation and Linguistics". CHAG paper. Justice, David. 1987. The Semantics of Form in Arabic in the Mirror of European Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.


281

Kempson, Ruth. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: CUP. Kinberg, Naphtalie. 1987. "The Terms radda, radd, and marduwd in Mďaaniy l-Quťaan by al-Farra". CHAG paper. Langhade, Jacques. 1983. "Grammaire, Logique Etudes Linguistique chez al-Farabi". in. K. Versteegh et alia eds., 1983, 129-142. — 1985. "Mentalité Grammairienne et Mentalité Logicienne au IV e Siècle". ZAL 15. 104117. Larcher, Pierre. 1987. "Elements pragmatiques dans la théorie grammaticale Arabe postclassique". CHAG paper. Levin, Aryeh. 1979. "The Meaning of Tďadda al-fi'l 'alayhi in Sibawayhi's 'Kitab\ Studia Orientalia (Memoriae D. H. Baneth Dedicata). 193-210. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. — 1981. 'Al-Musnad, al-MusnadIlayhi and al-'Isnaad". JAOS 101. 145-167. — 1985. "The Syntactic Technical Term al-mabniyy 'alayhi". Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 6. 299-352. — 1986. "The Medieval Arabic Term Kalima and the Modern Linguistic Term Morpheme: Similarities and Differences". Jersusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7: 423-46. — 1987. "The Views of the Arab Grammarians on the Classification and Syntactic Function of Prepositions". Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 10. 342-367. Neuwirth, Angelika. 1987. "Koran", in H. Gätje ed. 1987, 96-135. Mosel, Ulrike. 1975. Die syntaktische Terminologie bei Sibawayh. PhD Thesis , Munich University. Omar, Ahmad. 1987. "Grammatical Studies in Early Muslim Egypt". CHAG paper. Owens, Jonathan. 1984a. "Structure, Class and Dependency: Modern Linguistics and the Arabic Grammatical Tradition". Lingua 64. 25-62. — 1984b. "The Noun Phrase in Arabic Grammatical Theory". Al-Arabiyya 17. 47-86. — 1986. "The Comparative Study of Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory". The Fergusonian Impact, pp. 223-237. Joshua Fishman et alia eds. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. — 1987. "Themes in the Development of Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory". CHAG paper. — 1988. The Foundations of Grammar: an Introduction to Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory. (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences no. 45) Amsterdam: Benjamins.

282

REFERENCES

Owens, J. to appear a. "Models for Interpreting the Development of Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory". JAOS. — to appear b. "The Syntactic Basis of Arabic Word Classification". Arabica. Postal, Paul. 1971. Crossover Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Rajihi, 'Abd. 1974. Al-Tatbiyq l-Nahwiy. Beirut: Dar al-Nahda l-'Arabi. Reckendorf, Hermann. 1921 (repr. 1977). Arabisches Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Reuschel, W. 1959. Al-Xalil ibn Ahmad, der Lehrer Sibawayhs, als Grammatiker. Berlin: Akademischer Verlag. Talmon, Rafael. 1981. "Appositional 'atf: an Inquiry into the History of a Syntactic Category". Arabica 28. 278-293. — 1982. "Nahwiyyuwna in Sibawayhi's Kitaab". ZAL 8. 12-38. — 1984. "A Problematic Passage in Sibwaihi's al-Kitaab and the Authenticity of Axbaar about the Early History of Arabic Grammatical Thinking". JAOS 104. 681-701. — 1985. "Who was the First Grammarian? A New Approach to an Old Problem". ZAL 15. 128-45. — 1986a. "An Eighth-Century Grammatical School in Medina: the Collection and Evaluation of the Available Material". BSOAS 48. 224-36. — 1986b. "Al-Mas'alat al-Zanbuwriyya: Diraasa fly Maahiya Xtilaaf al-Madhabayn alNahwiyyayn". Al-Karmal 7: 131-164. — 1987. "The Philosophizing Farra': A New Reading of the Ma'aaniy paper.

l-Qur'aan\CHAG

— 1988. "A Study in the History of Sentence-concept and the Sibawayhian Legacy in Arabic Grammar. ZDMG 138. 74-98. Troupeau, Gérard. 1962. "La Grammaire à Bagdad du IX e au XIII e Siècle". Arabica 9. 397-405. — 1976. Lexique-Index du Kitaab de Sibawayhi. Paris: Klincksieck Versteegh, Cornells. 1977. Greek Elements in Arabie Linguistic Thinking. Leiden: Brill. — 1978. "The Arabic Terminology of Syntactic Position". Arabica 25. 261-280. — 1980. "Hellenistic Education and the Origin of Arabic Grammar". in Konrad Koerner ed. 333-344. Progress in Linguistic Historiography. Amsterdam: Benjamins.


283

Versteegh, C. 1983. "Arabic Grammar and the Corruption of Speech". Al-'Abhaath 31. 139-160. — 1987. "Die arabische Sprachwissenschaft". in H. Gätje ed. 1987, 148-76. Versteegh, Kees, Konrad Koerner and Hans Niederehe eds. 1983. The History of Linguistics in the Middle East. Amsterdam: Benjamins Weil, Gotthold. 1913. Die Grammatischen Streitfragen der Basrer und Kufer. Leiden: Brill. WeiB, Joseph. 1910. "Die arabische Nationalgrammatik und die Lateiner". ZDMG 64. 349-396. Wright, William. 1964. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Cambridge: CUP.

INDEX OF ARABIC GRAMMARIANS

Ahmar 10, 180 Anbari (Abu Barakat) 2, 7n., 14, 20, 28, 54, 60, 125, 174, 175n., 177, 209, 217 Anbari (Abu Bakr) 9, 86, 16 In., 181, 97-99, 206, 208, 211-16, 237 'Asim 6, 228 Astarabadi 16, 151, 177 Axfash 1, 8, 15n., 86, 91, 92, 9596, 99, 102, 119-21, 148-49, 155, 167, 209, 221-25 Batalyusi 59-61, 93, 239 Du'ali 228 Farabi 52n. Farra' 1-5, 8, 11, 15, 19-33, 83-91, 95-6, 98-100, 102, 103-07, 115-19, 12-23, 125, 127, 130-32, 134, 136, 139, 140-41, 144-48, 153-55, 156-60, 162-77, 182-96, 200, 202, 204-06, 208, 210-13, 214-19, 221-27, 229-33, 235, 240-41 Farisi 59, 98, 133, 150, 156, 202, 212, Hurmuz 228 Ibn'Aqil 14, 16, 132n., 151, 155n, 156 Ibn Barhan 14, 125, 132n., 133 Ibn Hisham 151 Ibn Jinni 26, 132n., 151, 156, 216, 237, 240 Ibn Kathir 6 Ibn Kaysan 9, 86, 94, 97-8, 150, 169, 174, 179, 180, 185-87, 194-96, 199,200,201 Ibn al-Nadim 1, 9, 179, 182, 201, 229 Ibn Qutayba 206 Ibn al-Shuqayyir 179 Ibn al-Sikkit 206, 219

Ibn'Usfur 151 Ibn Ya'ish 16, 199n., 206n. Jarmi 8, 10 Jurjani 16, 17, 97-8, 125, 133, 174, 221-27 Kisa'i 1, 6-8, 84, 146, 150, 208, 213, 230, 238 Lughda 9, 122, 148, 174, 181, 18789, 194-96, 199-201 Mazini 1, 8, 125, 209 Mubarrid 1, 2, 4, 9, 15-16, 23, 53, 61n., 93-7, 99, 103, 120-21, 125, 127, 133-34, 149, 155, 158, 161, 166-67, 174, 187, 202, 206, 214-16, 219, 22127, 235-38, 240 Mujahid 5-6, 219 Nahhas 86, 117, 130-31, 133n., 139, 148, 155n., 166n., 174, 188, 199n. Nafi' 6 Qaysi 130-31, 133n., 136n., 139-40, 155n. Qutrub 4, 10 Rummani 98 Sarraj 3-4, 9, 14, 16, 23, 46, 51-4, 55-61, 89, 95-103, 122, 133-34, 148, 150-51, 156, 161n., 169, 180, 184, 187, 189, 193, 202, 213, 219, 221-27, 230, 234-6, 238-39, 241 Shirbini 59, 156, 238n. Sibawayh 1-2, 4-8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 32, 35-54, 62-74, 74-83, 84-5, 88-9, 92, 95-103, 105-115, 121-22, 125, 128-30, 132, 134, 141-45, 148, 15153, 156-58, 160-64, 167, 169, 174-75, 177, 182-96, 199-200, 202-04, 208, 214-219, 221-27, 228-32, 234-36, 238-39, 241 Sijistani 8, 10, 198 Suyuti 9, l00n., 180

286 Saymari 125, 133, 134, 151, 240 Tha'lab 1, 9, 14, 93-6, 141, 149, 169, 181, 196-97, 206-08, 211n., 213-16 Wallad 192 Xalil bin Ahmad 7, 35, 180, 213 Yunus 35 Zajjaj 9, 27-33, 122-24, 139, 167n., 202, 208-13, 216 Zajjaji 16, 19, 54, 59-60, 97, 103, 121, 125, 170,213,214-15 Zamaxshari 14, 16, 97, 133, 135, 167, 169, 176, 237-38 Zubaydi 86, 94, 179, 200n., 201

INDEX

INDEX OF ARABIC GRAMMATICAL TERMS Basic translations of the Arabic terms are given, both a fairly literal rendition (if available) and a more technical one. In brackets are terms derivationally related to the head word, which refer basically to the same grammatical phenomenon constituting a terminological family. 'adaah "instrument, S-initial particle", 161n., 222, 231-32 'asl "source, base, unmarked" 19, 20, 216 'atf "bending, coordination" 61, 6365, 74-76, 78, 80, 81, 83-85, 93, 94, 97, 98, 100 'atf al-bayaan "classificatory conjunct" 59-61, 93, 97, 98, 222, 225, 240 'amala ('aatnil, ma'muwl, 'a'mal etc.) "work, do, govern" 11, 13, 164, 165, 183, 223 badal "exchange, substitute" "30, 41, 58, 59, 70-72, 78, 86, 91, 93, 94, 99, 102, 136, 139, 186, 194, 240 binaa' "structure, invariable morphological form" 13 damma "inclusion, u-inf form" 159 damiyr "conscience, pronoun" 168170, 186 damiyr al-sa'n/damiyr al-hadiy0 "pronoun cataphoric to S" 183 ff. 196 darf (pl. duruwf) "container, locative" 36, 51, 111-115, 141-151, 185, 194, 199, 222, 225 faa'il "doer, agent" 152, 156, 160 fasl "separation, separative pro" 92, 161, 166-167, 196, 202, 204, 209, 222-23, 225 fatha "opening, a-inf form" 159 fi'l (pl. 'af'aal "verbs", 'afaa'fyl "predicates" = Farra') "action, predicate, verb" 92, 161, 166-167, 196, 202, 204, 209, 222, 231-33

hamzat al-wasl 28 haal "condition" 30, 36, 41, 47, 7677, 100, 109, 110, 111, 116-119, 125, 135, 136, 141, 161, 173, 185 ff., 194, 201, 236, 241 harf (pi. huruwf) "edge, letter, sound, particle word class" 150, 183 ff., 195, 222, 232, 245-48 'ibtidaa' "beginning, first part of nominal S" 23, 36 'i'raab "manifestation, inflection" 13,16 'idaafa "annexation, genitive construction" 14-17, 105, 106, 120, 121 'imaad "support, finite predicational unit, separative pronoun" 161, 166-170, 196, 202, 209, 222, 224, 230, 233 'isnaad "support, predication" 103107, 215, 221, 237, 249-50 'isti0naa' "exception" 109, 161n. 'istiytaa' 206 'istigaal (see also sagala) "occupation, topicahzed a-inf noun" 112, 175,254-55 'ittisaa' "extension, extension of function" 239 'iyjaab ( = tahqiyq) 206 jahd "denial, negation" 183 ff., 195 (maa) jaraa/yajriy "run, be inflected" 161, 182 ff., 195, 222, 232-33 jarr (majruwr etc.) "pulling, i-inf form" 159, 160, 165, 195

288

INDEX

jazm (majzuwm etc.) "cutting off, 0-infform" 183 ff., 195,202 jiwaar "neighborhood" 193 kalaam "speech, utterance" 29 kalima "word" 186 ff., 195, 222, 226, 245 ff. kasra "breaking, i-inf form" 159 kinaaya "nickname, pro form" 186 ff., 196 luga "language, variety" 29 mabniyy 'alaa 1-mubtada' 44, 45 mafuwl (pi. mafaa'iyl) "the done, object" 152, 161 n. maf'uwl bihi "direct object" 36, 110, 155, 160, 161n. mafuwl fiyhi "locative object" ( = darf) 149, 160, 161n. maf'uwl lahu "reason object" 32, 33, 160, 161n. maf'uwl ma'ahu "accompaniment object" 36, 160, 161n. maf'uwl mutlaq "absolute object" 46, 112, 161n. mafuwl minhu 110, 161n. mahall "place, location" 144, 149 majhuwl "unknown, passive form" 169 manquwl "moved, transposed" 13334 manzila "camping site, class" 47, 49, 50, 153 mawdi' "place, position, function" 19, 22, 23, 49, 223, 225, 232-34 maxsuws (or muxtass) "specific, specialized, inherently locative N" 150, 151 mu'anna0 "feminine" 26 mu'aqqat "temporary, definite proper N" 30 mubham "obscure, inherently locative N" 150, 151, 183 mubtada' "beginning, topic" 44, 45, 170 mudakkar "masculine" 26 mudaaf "annexed, posssessed N" 104, 108 mudaaf 'ilayhi "possessor" 15, 104

mudmar "hidden, deleted, ellipted, pronoun" 40 munsarif (yansarifu etc.) "going, fully inflectable" 161, 182, 186, 195 muqaddar "covertly present" 151 musnad "propped up, predicate, first element of (finite) predication" 24, 103-107, 236, 240, 249-50 musnad 'ilayhi "propped against, subject, second element of (finite) predication" 103-107, 2 3 7 musaarika "participation" 193, 195 nafy "denial, negative" 161, 183 ff. 195 nasaq "lining up, coordination" 85, 97, 194 nasb (mansuwb) "erecting, a-inf form" 159, 165 na't "qualifier, adjective" 57-58, 61, 69-70, 79, 83-84, 93, 94, 97, 100101, 222, 232-34, 240 qať "cutting, haal" 30, 116-119, 122-124, 136-141, 190, 194, 201, 202, 206 qiyaas (taqiys etc.) "measurement, analogy" 19, 25, 132, 203 raf (marfuw') "raising, u-inf form" 159, 165 sabab "link, reason, semantic link" 175 sagala (masguwl) "work, occupy, take syntactic precedence" 119, 153, 155, 175, 196, 221, 239, 251-55 siraak "association, coordination" 72, 73, 98, 161 sarf "averting, differential a-inf form" 158, 195 sifa "description, qualifier, adjective, locative" (= Farra') 30, 65-69, 74-76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 91, 97, 100-101, 135, 141 (= locative) 151, 191 ff., 194, 199, 202, 210, 23133


sifa musabbaha "a qualifier subclass" 161 tabi'a {taabi', pl. tawaabV) "follow, agree, be in concord" 73, 88-91, 92, 94, 100, 103, 183, 185, 186, 194, 221, 223-25, 234 tabyiyn (bayaan) "clarification specification" 127, 130, 131 ta'diya "crossing over, transitivity" 110 tafsiyr (mufassir) "explanation, specification" 24, 25, 31, 129, 130132, 135, 136-41, 157, 191, 194, 201, 225-26,232 tahqiyq "investigation" 206 takriyr "repetition, substitute" 8688, 98, 99, 136-141, 222, 230-32 tamaam (= maf'uwlminhu) "completion" 206 tamyiyz "distinguishing, specification" 31, 36n., 45, 52, 120, 122, 124-125, 127-135, 136-141, 222, 225-26, 238-40 tanwiyn "nunation, indefinite -n form" 44, 107, 108

taqdiym "presentation, fronting" 186 taqriyb "drawing near, presentative nominal S" 31, 158, 173, 222, 239 tarjama "translation explanation" 86, 136-139 tawkiyd "emphasizing, emphasis" 56, 57, 62, 63, 74-76, 87, 92, 93, 94, 99, 194 waqa'a ('ïyqaa', wuquw', 'awqa', waaqi', etc.) "fall, govern" 11, 115, 116, 162-166, 191, 195, 222-23, 23133 xabar "news, comment, predicate" 14, 36, 170, 172 xafd (maxfuwd, = jarr) "lowering, i-inf form" 159, 186, 195, 202 xuruwj "exit, leaving, structural/semantic separation" 116-119, 194

289

SUBJECT INDEX

(Ar = in index of Arabic terms) a-inf form 107-21 Sibawayh's account 107-16 Axfash's account 119, 20 Analogical reasoning 25, 43-45 Arabic as non-native language 101, 102 Basic typology of early linguistic thinking 103 Basra and Kufa 203-19 emergence as schools 2, 3 in earliest period 203, 205 graphic summary 218 -19 introduction to 1-5 post-Farra' 206-08 Tha'lab's role 07 Zajjaj's role 208-13 accuracy of 210-13 basic data 208-10 tabular summary 209 periodization of to codify data 213-18 formalized schools 214-18 source of data 204, 213, 215 relation to linguistic data 203-19, 22728 Cataphoric pronoun 168-70 Class (see substitution) 47-9. 51-4, 55 Class focus of terminology 138-41 Classificatory conjunct (see Ar 'atf al-bayaan) 59-61 concordance (see Ar tabi'd) 100 in Sibawayh 73 in Farra'88-91 Conjunct 61, 72, 73

Coordination 61, 72, 73 Conventions 12 Dating of works 201-02 Demonstratives 66 Dependency (see Ar 'Vraab) 13, 14 Direct object and explanation of ainf form 119 Distribution 37-9 Ellipsis in reason object 31-3 in possession 14-17 Emphasis (see Ar tawkiyd) in Sarraj 56-7 in Sibawayh 62-5 Function 23, 36-7, 46, 51-4 Gender 26 General rules in Farra' 21 Governance (or Dependency, Ar waqa'a) 13, 14 as physical correlate in Farra' 115, 116, 162-166 in possessive 14-17 of tamyiyz 129-133 of topic and comment 170-172 haal (see Ar haal) Heterogeneity 199-200, 224 i-inf form 14-17 indefinite noun (Ar tanwiyn) 107, 108 Invariable form 22, 23 Kufa (see Basra and Kufa)

292

INDEX

Linguists, summary of 6-10 Locative (see Ar darf) 51, 141-51 criteria for 144 Farra's acccount 144-48 final synthesis 150, 151 later accounts 148-50 nouns 147 prepositions and prepositional phrases 146, 147 Sibawayh51, 141-44 in Sibawayh's transitivity system 111-15 Meaning Farra' 132, 157-59 Sibawayh 40, 41 vs. structural definitions Medineans 204, 205, 215 Methodology of Basrans/Kufans 2, 3 of Farra'19-25 of Sarraj/Sibawayh compared (see also Substitution) 51-4 of Sibawayh 35-51 of Tha'lab and Abu Bakr al-Anbari 196-99 Minor linguists/works 179-96 comparison with Sibawayh/Farra' 19196 Ibn Kaysan 185-87 KIN 189-93 Lughda 187-89 MN 181-85 tabular summary 193-96 Names of short vowels 159 Non-standard traditions 200, 201 Notational and substantive variation 199, 200, 224 Noun complementation 55-102 inAxfash 91,92,253 class of complementizers 56-61 degree of change in 102 in Farra' 83-91 general summary 95-102 in Mubarrid and others 93-5 realignment of terms 100-02 refinement of terminology 95-8 relations in Sibawayh's 74-83 in Sarraj 56-61 in Sibawayh 62-74

tabular summary in Sibawayh's 74 in Thalab 93-5 Noun qualifier (see Ar na't) opposed to CC 60, 61 types of in: Sarraj 57, 58 Sibawayh 65-70 Numerals (in tamyiyz) Organization of: Kitaab 51-4 Al-Usuwl fiy l-Nahw 51-4 Muqaddima fiy l-Nahw 181-82 Object absolute 16 1n. accompaniment 36-7, 161n. cognate 112, 161n direct 110, 161n. minhu 110, 161n. reason 31-3, 161n. time/place (see. Ar darf) 141-51 vs. haal 110-11 Page references to Farra's terminology 253-54 Parts of speech 143, 148 Passive Axfash 155 Farra' 153-55 later grammarians 156 Mubarrid 155-56 Sibawayh 113-14, 152-53 in terms of a fi'l 152 unnamed agent 153, 155-56 Pedagogy and grammar 180 Periodization of linguistic schools (see Basra/Kufa) 213-219 of structural developments 226-27 Position 36-7, 51-4, 213-14 invariable form 22 sequence 23 exceptional constructions 24-5 Possessive (see i-inf, Ar 'idaafa. 'isnaad) 14-7, 104-05 Predicate Farra's general term (see Ar fi'l) 17077 sentential 174-77 in Sibawayh (see Ar 'isnaad) 103-04 Pronouns 67, 166-70, 174

ARAB GRAMMAR: THE E R A O F HETEROGENEITY

cataphoric to sentence 168-70 separative 166-67 Qiraa'aat, Quranic readings 5, 6 Qualifier (Ar nďť) Quťaan 5, 6 Farm's and Zajjaj's treatments compared 26-31 al-baqara 30-2 al-faatiha 28-30 Reason object 31-3 Reconstruction of pre-Sibawayhian period 228-33 References to linguistic entities in Tha'lab 207 Relative prominence of terminology 139-41 Scalar differences and developments development of the 'schools' 213-219 in development of 'idaafa 14-17 Sibawayh and Sarraj 53-4 of structural categories 135-35, 224-25 Semantics as determiner of linguistic development in Farra's method 157-59 in Sibawayh 40-41 Separation as linguistic principle 116-24 Axfash's generalization 119-20 its disappearance 121-24 Farra' 116-19, 131 Zajjaj's criticism of Kufans 122-24 Sequence of tamyiyz 23, 124-26 SNIP, separation and non-identity principle 107-10, 115 Specifier (see Ar tamyiyz, tafsiyr, tabyiyn) 127-35 Structural development of Arabic theory according to linguistic principles 233-41 formal/functional determinants 236-37 logic of general principles 237 organization and explicitness 234-36 positional autonomy 239 reductionism 239-40 semantics 237-38 differential classification of developments 221-41

293

extent of development 241 periodization of 213-219, 226-27 relation to Basra/Kufa 227-28 statistical dominance in Farra's terminology 137-41 tabular summary 221-24 Substitution 24, 212 in Sarraj 51-4 in Sibawayh 35-50 define distribution of items 37-8 form 39-40 grammatical function 36-7 meaning 40-41 Sibawayh's techniques 41-50 analogical reasoning 43-5 cue words 45-8 item for item 42-3 negative evidence 41-2 typical member/form/class 48-9 Substitute (see Ar badal) opposed to CC 60-62 in Sarraj 58-9 in Sibawayh 70-2 Term focus of terminology 137-41 Terminology, translations 11 categorical and gradualistic development 135-36 categorical differences 160-62 defined term becomes defining 98 precision of Farra's 136-41 names of short vowels 159 Survival of terms 98-9 Tha'lab's references to Basra/Kufa Topic and comment 44-5, 151, 17072 and isnaad 103-07 Transitivity 110-15 Types of relations in Sibawayh's noun complementation 74-83 class inclusion 74-7 distinctive categories 77-9 free variation 79, 80 unclear 81 Unique features in minor linguists 184 ff., 200-01 Unmarked (Ar 'asl) 19, 20, 48-50

294

Word (Ar harf) 243-46 Ząjjąj and Farra' 26-31, 210-13, 243 Zaxjaj's references to Basra/Kufa 209, 256

INDEX

Early Arabic Grammatical Theory: Heterogeneity & Standardization

Heads in Grammatical Theory

Welsh Negation and Grammatical Theory

Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing

Grammatical Voice

Grammatical voice

Grammatical relations

Arabic Language - Arabic Grammar

First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development

A Grammatical Description of the Early Classic Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions

First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development

Arabic Verbs & Essentials of Grammar

Electrocardiographic assessment of repolarization heterogeneity

Comprehensive Bioactive Natural Products, Volume 8: Quality Control & Standardization

Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early 'Abbasaid Society (2nd-4th 5th-10th c.) (Arabic Thought & Culture)

Early Buddhism & Its Origins

Contemporary Cambodian: Grammatical Sketch

Grammatical Sketch of Ossetic

Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early 'Abbasaid Society (2nd-4th 5th-10th c.) (Arabic Thought & Culture)

Corepresentation of grammatical structure

Grammatical Case in Estonian

Arabic Script

Arabic Calligraphy

A Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic: English-Arabic (Arabic Series)

Colloquial Arabic

Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic (Arabic - English)

Philosophy & Organization Theory

Antenna Theory & Design

Arabic Authors

Early Arabic Grammatical Theory: Heterogeneity & Standardization

Heads in Grammatical Theory

Welsh Negation and Grammatical Theory

Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing

Grammatical Voice

Grammatical voice

Grammatical relations

Arabic Language - Arabic Grammar

First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development

A Grammatical Description of the Early Classic Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions

First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development

Arabic Verbs & Essentials of Grammar

Electrocardiographic assessment of repolarization heterogeneity

Comprehensive Bioactive Natural Products, Volume 8: Quality Control & Standardization

Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early 'Abbasaid Society (2nd-4th 5th-10th c.) (Arabic Thought & Culture)

Early Buddhism & Its Origins

Contemporary Cambodian: Grammatical Sketch

Grammatical Sketch of Ossetic

Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early 'Abbasaid Society (2nd-4th 5th-10th c.) (Arabic Thought & Culture)

Corepresentation of grammatical structure

Grammatical Case in Estonian

Arabic Script

Arabic Calligraphy

A Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic: English-Arabic (Arabic Series)

Colloquial Arabic

Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic (Arabic - English)

Philosophy & Organization Theory

Antenna Theory & Design

Arabic Authors

Recommend Documents