Work in progress.
Not ready for study.

26  The doer participle as a verb-like governor

Warning

THIS BOOK IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY HAVE TYPOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER ERRORS. IT IS NOT YET READY FOR STUDY.

26.1 Introduction

The verb is the basic, and strongest, governor of a doer or doee. Deverbal nouns, because they are derived from the verb, can also govern in a verb-like manner. In this chapter we will discuss the rules of how such nouns may act as verb-like governors.

26.2 The doer participle as a verb-like governor

The doer participle is the closest of the deverbal nouns to the verb, and thus the strongest of the deverbal nouns in its capacity to act as a verb-like governor.

Consider the following sentence:

  1. زَيْدٌ يَقُومُ
    Zayd – he stands

As we know from chapter (ref), this is a compound sentence. زَيْدٌ is the subject of an outer sentence. The info of the outer sentence is the inner sentence يَقُومُ.

Instead of using the stateful verb يَقُومُ, we can use its doer participle قَائِم, thus:

  1. زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ
    Zayd is standing

As you can see, we have translated the stateful verb يَقُومُ as stands and the doer participle قَائِم as standing. We will discuss the difference in meaning between the stateful verb and the doer participle in more detail in chapter (ref), if Allāh wills. For now, we will focus on the grammar of the two sentences.

There is one notable similarity between the grammar of examples (1) and (2), and one notable difference:

The similarity

The stateful verb يَقُومُ, and the doer participle قَائِمٌ both govern a latent doer pronoun, implicated as [هُوَ].

The difference

The stateful verb يَقُومُ and its latent doer pronoun [هُوَ] are complementary structural elements that constitute a complete sentence. The latent doer pronoun [هُوَ] is the structure-starter and the stateful verb يَقُومُ is the structure-completer. The sentence formed by the stateful verb يَقُومُ and its latent doer pronoun [هُوَ] is in place of a u-state noun as the info of the subject (زَيْدٌ) of the outer sentence.

On the other hand, and the doer participle قَائِمٌ and its latent doer pronoun [هُوَ] are not complementary structural elements. Rather, قَائِمٌ (as the structure-completer) and زَيْدٌ (as the structure-starter) are complementary structural elements. This is a simple sentence, not a compound sentence. The latent doer pronoun [هُوَ] is not the structural element of any sentence. But, despite being dispensable from the perspective of sentence completion, the latent doer pronoun is an essential governee of the doer participle.

Let’s take a look at another example:

  1. رَأَيْتُ رَجُلًا قَائِمًا
    I saw a standing man.

The structural elements of this sentence are رَأَيْتُ: the verb رَأَى and its doer pronoun تُ. The entire phrase رَجُلًا قَائِمًا has only dispensable elements. قَائِمًا is a attribute of رَجُلًا, governed by the verb رَأَى. The doer participle قَائِمًا has a latent doer pronoun [هُوَ] that refers back to رَجُلًا. But because قَائِمًا is a (dispensable) element of an existing sentence (whose structural elements are رَأَيْتُ), therefore it cannot be the structural structure-completer of a new sentence with its latent doer pronoun [هُوَ].

So, as you can see, whenever the doer participle has a latent doer pronoun, that doer pronoun is not the structure-starter of any sentence. This is because the doer participle, as a single element, is already a member of an existing sentence.

In contrast, a verb always forms a sentence (as the structure-completer) with its doer (as the structure-starter). If we replace the doer participle قَائِمًا with the verb يَقُومُ thus:

  1. رَأَيْتُ رَجُلًا يَقُومُ

then يَقُومُ is a complete sentence with the verb and its latent doer pronoun as structural elements. This complete sentence is the attribute of رَجُلًا.

26.3 The doer participle as the governor of a latent doer pronoun

Let us look into the latent doer pronoun of the doer participle in more detail. It makes sense for a verb to have a doer but how can a noun have a doer? The reason is that the doer participle, because of its closeness to the verb, can act like one. When acting with verbal force, it can govern a doer. It can also, as we will see soon, if Allāh wills, govern a direct doee.

The doer of the doer participle is, by default, a latent pronoun. And it refers back to a referent that occurs before it. In example (2) زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ the doer of the doer participle قَائِمٌ is the latent pronoun [هُوَ]. And the referent of this doer pronoun is the subject زَيْدٌ.

DIAGRAM

Let’s see another example:

  1. صَاحَ الرَّجُلُ الْقَائِمُ
    The standing man shouted.

then الْقَائِمُ governs a latent doer pronoun [هُوَ], that refers back to الرَّجُلُ.

The fact that the doer participle has a latent doer pronoun is, in fact, the reason why a doer participle in the info will match the subject in gender.1

For example, if we say:

  1. هِنْدٌ قَائِمَةٌ
    Hind is standing.

then the feminine marker ة is added to the doer participle قَائِم only because it has to match the feminine gender of the latent doer pronoun [هِيَ] that occurs with, and is governed by, the doer participle. (The latent doer pronoun [هِيَ] refers back to هِنْد.)

When the referent of the latent doer pronoun changes for number or gender, then the latent doer pronoun will change to match it. For example:

  1. الزَّيْدَانِ قَائِمَانِ [حاشية الصبان على شرح الأشمونى لألفية ابن مالك 1/291]
    The two Zayds are standing.

  2. الزَّيْدُونَ قَائِمُونَ [حاشية الصبان على شرح الأشمونى لألفية ابن مالك 1/291]
    The Zayds are standing.

In example (7) above, the latent doer pronoun of قَائِمَانِ is implicated as هُمَا.

And in example (8) the latent doer pronoun of قَائِمُونَ is implicated as هُمْ.

As a point of technicality, the alif in the dual suffix of قَائِمَانِ and the و in the plural suffix of قَائِمُونَ, are not themselves the doer pronouns.2 Rather, the doer pronouns for the doer participles above are latent.

This is different than for verbs. In the verbs يَقُومَانِ and يَقُومُونَ, the alif in انِ and the و in ونَ are, themselves, considered the doer pronouns. And these pronouns are overt, not latent.

26.4 The doer participle as the governor of a direct doee

We have seen that the doer participle, when acting with verbal force, governs a doer. In a similar manner, the doer participle for transitive verbs can, optionally, govern a direct doee. In order to introduce this behavior, we use again, as our starting point, the u-state stateful verb. Consider the following example:

  1. زَيْدٌ يَضْرِبُ عَمْرًا
    Zayd beats Amr

Example (9) above is parsed as follows:

  • زَيْدٌ is a subject.
  • يَضْرِبُ is a stateful verb in the u-state. It governs a latent pronoun (implicated as هُوَ) in the u-state as its doer. The latent doer pronoun هُوَ refers back to its referent: the subject زَيْدٌ.
  • عَمْرًا is a direct doee, governed in the a-state by the verb يَضْرِبُ.
  • يَضْرِبُ عَمْرًا is an inner sentence which is in place of a u-state noun as the info of the subject زَيْدٌ.

Instead of using the verb يَضْرِبُ in example (9) above we may instead use its doer participle ضَارِب, thus:

  1. زَيْدٌ ضَارِبٌ عَمْرًا
    Zayd is beating Amr

Example (10) is parsed as follows:

  • زَيْدٌ is a subject.
  • ضَارِبٌ is the info of the subject زَيْدٌ. It governs a latent pronoun (implicated as هُوَ) in the u-state as its doer. The latent doer pronoun هُوَ refers back to the subject زَيْدٌ.
  • عَمْرًا is a direct doee, governed in the a-state by the doer participle ضَارِبٌ.

As you can see, the doer participle ضَارِبٌ can govern a direct doee just like the verb يَضْرِبُ.

However, while a transitive verb can govern a direct doee unconditionally, a doer participle can only govern a direct doee if certain conditions are satisfied. We will discuss these conditions in section (ref) below.

By the way, we again highlight the difference in the doer of the verb يَضْرِبُ vs the doer of the doer participle ضَارِبٌ: The verb يَضْرِبُ and its doer are complementary structural pairs that constitute a complete sentence. Whereas, the doer participle ضَارِبٌ does not form a new sentence with its doer.

26.4.1 A doer participle defined by ٱل as the governor of a direct doee

Example (10) shows the government of a direct doee by an doer participle that is not defined by ٱل. In a similar manner, an doer participle that is defined by ٱل, can also govern a direct doee. For example:

  1. هَذَا الضَّارِبُ زَيْدًا [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 4/84]
    This [person] is the beater of Zayd.

By the way, you my be wondering what is the difference between the sentence in example (11) هَذَا الضَّارِبُ زَيْدًا above, and if we had used an annexation thus:

  1. هَذَا ضَارِبُ زَيْدٍ This [person] is the beater of Zayd.

This is touched upon in section (ma3aani_ism_faa3il).

26.4.2 Word order of the direct doee and its governing doer participle

As with verbs, the direct doee usually follows its governing doer participle (as in the examples above). But when an doer participle is not prefixed by ال, then its direct doee is allowed to precede it. So we can say:

  1. هذا زيدا ضارب [شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 1/259]
    This [person] is beating Zayd.

While the direct doee is permitted to precede its governing doer participle (as above), it is very common, in such a case, for a strengthening-لِ to be used with an indirect doee instead, thus:

  1. هذا لِزيدٍ ضارب
    This [person], to Zayd, is beating.

  2. لِلضَّيْفِ مُكْرِمٌ [Fischer 113]
    to the guest, is honoring
    (i.e. honoring the guest)

The strengthening-لِ is discussed in more detail in section (later chapter).3

Also, the freedom for the governee of a doer participle to precede it is only given to the doer participle not prefixed by ال. When an doer participle is prefixed by ال, then its direct doee is not allowed to precede it.4 So we cannot say:

  1. ✗ هذا زيدا الضارب

We would have to say instead

  1. ✓ هذا الضارب زيدا

TODO: Fronting the direct doee is not permitted for participle-like adjective. See link in example above. Add to section on participle-like adjective

26.4.3 A dual or plural doer participle as the governor of a direct doee

A dual or plural doer participle may govern a direct doee just like the singular. So we can say:

  1. هذان ضاربان زيدًا [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 4/97]
    These two [persons] are beating Zayd.

  2. هم ضاربون زيدًا [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 4/97]
    These [persons] are beating Zayd.

  3. الهندات ضاربات عمرا [شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 1/439]
    The Hinds are beating Ɛamr.

Doer participles defined by ٱل are again also permitted:

  1. هذان الضاربان زيدا [شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 2/40]
    These two are the beaters of Zayd.

  2. هؤلاء الضاربون الرجل [شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 2/40]
    These are the beaters of the man.

  3. وَٱلۡمُقِیمِینَ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَۚ وَٱلۡمُؤۡتُونَ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ [سورة النساء 4:162 cited by شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 2/40]
    And the establishers of prayer [especially] and the givers of zakāh

For plurals, the sound plurals are more worthy of being used as verb-like governors5 as in the examples above. However, broken plurals are permitted as well. So we can say:

  1. الزيدون ضُرّابٌ عمرًا [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 4/97]
    The Zayds are beating Ɛamr.

  2. الهِنْداتُ ضواربُ عَمْرًا [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 4/97]
    The Hinds are beating Ɛamr.

Flexible word order is again permitted for the dual and the plural as it was for the singular:

  1. الزيدان عمرا ضاربان [شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 1/439]
    The two Zayds are beating Ɛamr.

  2. الزيدون عَمْرًا ضُرّابٌ [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 4/97]
    The Zayds are beating Ɛamr.

  3. الهندات عمرا ضاربات [شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 1/439]
    The Hinds are beating Ɛamr.

  4. الهِنْداتُ عَمْرًا ضواربُ [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 4/97]
    The Hinds are beating Ɛamr.

26.5 Conditions for the doer participle to govern a direct doee

As we mentioned above, there are conditions that must be satisfied in order for an doer participle to be able to govern a direct doee in this manner. The conditions are different for when the doer participle is defined by ٱلْ, and when it is not defined by ٱلْ. We will discuss each of these cases separately below:

26.5.1 When the doer participle is not defined by ٱلْ

When the doer participle is not defined by ٱلْ, then two conditions must be satisfied:

  1. The verbal aspect of the doer participle must be imperfect. That is, it must indicate an ongoing (whether present or past) or future action. Examples:

    • present ongoing:

      1. هذا ضارب زيدا الآن [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/106]
        This [person] is beating Zayd now.

    • past ongoing:

      1. كان زيد ضاربا عمرا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/107]
        Zayd was beating Ɛamr.

      2. وَكَلْبُهُمْ بَاسِطٌ ذِرَاعَيْهِ بَٱلْوَصِيدِ [سورة الكهف 18:18 cited by شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/106]
        while their dog stretched his forelegs at the entrance

    • future:

      1. هذا ضارب زيدا غَدًا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/106]
        This [person] will beat Zayd tomorrow.

    If the verbal aspect indicated by the doer participle is perfect, then the doer participle may not govern a direct doee. So, for example, we cannot say:

    1. ✗ هذا ضارب زيدا أمس [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/106]
      This [person] beat Zayd yesterday.

    If we desire to use the doer participle, then it will not have verbal force. And زَيْد will have to be a base noun in a annexation. Furthermore, this annexation will be real (see chapter (ref)).

    1. هذا ضارب زيد أمس [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/106]
      This [person] was the beater of Zayd yesterday.

    An exception is made for for transitive verbs that take more than one direct doee, like جعل, أَعطى, etc. When the doer participle of such a verb is annexed to what would have been the first direct doee, then second direct doee is permitted to be in the a-state, even if the aspect is perfect.6 For example:

    1. هذا معطي زيد أمس درهما [شرح التسهيل لابن مالك 3/78]
      This [person] was the giver of Zayd, yesterday, a dirham.

    Even the first direct doee may remain in the a-state, if separated from the doer participle. For example:

    1. هذا ظان أمس زيدا فاضلا [شرح التسهيل لابن مالك 3/78]
      This [person] was the believer, yesterday, of Zayd as an eminent person.

  2. The second condition that should be satisfied is that the doer participle must have governing support. This governing support can be provided by the following means:

    • The doer participle occurs after a question word. Example:

      1. أضارب زيد عمرا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/107]
        Is Zayd beating Ɛamr?

      2. هَلْ مُكْرِمٌ أَنْتَ زَيْدًا [Wright 2/65D]
        Will you be treating Zayd with respect?

    • The doer participle occurs after a vocative particle: Example:

      1. يا طالعا جبلا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/107]
        O scaler [of] a mountain!

    • The doer participle occurs in a negation: Example:

      1. ما ضارب زيد عمرا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/107]
        Zayd is not beating Ɛamr.

      2. مَا أَنْتَ بِتَابِعٍ قِبْلَتَهُمْ [سورة البقرة 2:145 cited by Wright 2/65D]
        Nor will you be a follower of their qiblah

      3. مَا مُجِيرٌ أَحَدٌ عَدُوَّ أَحِبَّاءِهِ [Wright 2/65D]
        No one gives protection to the enemy of his loved ones

    • The doer participle occurs as a attribute. Example:

      1. مررت برجل ضارب زيدا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/107]
        I passed by a man beating Zayd.

      2. مَرَرْتُ بِفَارِسٍ طَالِبٍ ثَأْرَ أَبِيهِ [Wright 2/65C]
        I passed by a horseman (who was) seeking vengeance for (the murder of) his father

      An implied attribute is also considered permissible. Example:

      1. كَمْ مَالِئٍ عَيْنَيْهِ مِنْ شَيْءِ غَيْرِهِ [Wright 2/65C; شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/108]
        How many a one fills his eyes with a thing of [someone] other than him
        (i.e. كَمْ شَخْصٍ مَالِئٍ How many a person fills…)

      2. كَنَاطِحٍ صَخْرَةً يَوْمًا لِيُوهِنَهَا [Wright 2/65C; شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/109]
        Like the gorer of a rock, one day, to try to weaken it
        (i.e. كَوَعِلٍ نَاطِحٍ like a goring mountain goat…)

    • The doer participle occurs as a ḥāl. Example:

      1. جاء زيد راكبا فرسا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/107]
        Zayd came riding a horse.

    • The doer participle occurs as a info. Example:

      1. زيد ضارب عمرا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/107]
        Zayd is beating Ɛamr.

      We will learn in later chapters, if Allāh wills, different forms of infos. The following examples show these different forms, with references to the later chapters.

      1. كان زيد ضاربا عمرا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/107]
        Zayd was beating Ɛamr.
        (See chapter (kaana).)

      2. إن زيدا ضارب عمرا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/107]
        Indeed Zayd is beating Ɛamr.
        (See chapter (inna).)

      3. ظننت زيدا ضاربا عمرا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/107]
        I thought Zayd [was] beating Ɛamr.
        (See chapter (zanna).)

      4. أعلمت زيدا عمرا ضاربا بكرا [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/107]
        I let Zayd know Ɛamr is beating Bakr.
        (See chapter (zanna).)

26.5.2 When the doer participle is defined by ٱلْ

When the doer participle is defined by ٱلْ, then it is permitted to govern a direct doee for a perfect or imperfect aspect. Furthermore, no governing support is required for it to be a governor,7 (as was required for the doer participle without ٱلْ in section (ref) above).

So we can say:

  1. جاء الضارب زيداً أمسِ أو الآن أو غداً [شرح شذور الذهب للجوجري 2/683]
    The beater of Zayd came yesterday/today/tomorrow

26.6 The doer participle as the governor of an overt doer pronoun

The latent doer pronoun becomes overt in some circumstances. In this section, we will discuss one such circumstance. Consider the sentence:

  1. الفارس الحصانُ مُتْعِبُه [النحو الوافي 1/463]

This grammar is parsed as follows:

  • الْفَارِسُ is the subject of the outer sentence.
  • الْحِصَانُ is a second subject. It is the subject of the inner sentence.
  • مُتْبِع is the info of the inner sentence. It is also a annexe noun.
  • The pronoun هُ is a base noun.
  • The inner sentence الْحِصَانُ مُتْبِعُهُ is the info of the subject (الْفَارِسُ) of outer sentence.

The info of the inner sentence مُتْبِع one who makes tired has a latent doer pronoun, implicated as [هُوَ]. It is possible for this latent doer pronoun to refer to either الْفَارِسُ or الْحِصَانُ. Let’s discuss both these meanings:

  1. If the latent doer pronoun [هُوَ] in مُتْبِع refers to الْحِصَانُ then the meaning is that the horse makes the horseman tired. In this case, the pronoun هُ in مُتْبِعُهُ refers to الْفَارِسُ.

  2. And if the latent doer pronoun [هُوَ] in مُتْبِع refers to الْفَارِسُ then the meaning is that the horseman makes the horse tired. In this case, the pronoun هُ in مُتْبِعُهُ refers to الْحِصَانُ.

Both meanings are possible.

If only the second meaning is desired, then the latent doer pronoun [هُوَ] can be made overt and added after the doer participle مُتْبِع, thus:

  1. الفارس الحصانُ مُتْعِبُه هُوَ [النحو الوافي 1/464]
    The horseman – the horse – [he] makes him tired.
    (i.e. The horseman makes the horse tired.)

Now only the second meaning is possible. If the first meaning is desired, the doer pronoun of مُتْبِع must stay latent and the ambiguity will remain.

By the way, the ambiguity arose in the original sentence (الفارس الحصانُ مُتْعِبُه) only because both subjects (الْفَارِسُ and الْحِصَانُ) are singular masculine nouns. If the two subjects are distinguishable in number or gender then there will be no ambiguity. However, even in this case, according to some grammarians, if the info is to refer to the subject of the outer sentence, then the doer pronoun of the doer participle in the info should be made overt. For example:

  1. زَيْدٌ هِنْدٌ ضَارِبُهَا هُوَ [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 1/207]
    Zayd – Hind – [he] is beating her.
    (i.e. Zayd is beating Hind.)

But according to other grammarians, because ضَارِب can refer only to Zayd and not to Hind, the doer participle’s doer pronoun can remain latent,8 thus:

  1. زَيْدٌ هِنْدٌ ضَارِبُهَا
    Zayd – Hind – [he] is beating her.
    (i.e. Zayd is beating Hind.)

26.7 The sababi info

Consider again example (9) زَيْدٌ يَضْرِبُ عَمْرًا. From this original sentence, we replaced the verb يَضْرِبُ with its doer participle and came up with (10) زَيْدٌ ضَارِبٌ عَمْرًا.

Now consider the following example:

  1. زَيْدٌ يَضْرِبُ أَبُوهُ عَمْرًا
    Zayd – his father beats Ɛamr

In example (58) above the doer of يَضْرِبُ is not Zayd but Zayd’s father. If we use this sentence as our starting point, we can again replace the verb يَضْرِبُ with its doer participle ضَارِبٌ and say:

  1. زَيْدٌ ضَارِبٌ أَبُوهُ عَمْرًا
    Zayd – his father is beating Ɛamr

أَبُوهُ is the (overt) doer of the doer participle ضَارِبٌ. And عَمْرًا is its direct doee. So just like a verb can have an overt noun as its doer instead of a latent pronoun, so too can the doer participle have an overt noun as its doer instead of a latent pronoun.

Again, there is one important difference between using the verb يَضْرِبُ vs using its doer participle ضَارِبٌ. And that is that يَضْرِبُ أَبُوهُ عَمْرًا in example (58) is a complete sentence. This inner sentence is the info of the outer sentence. Therefore, example (58) is a compound sentence.

However, ضَارِبٌ أَبُوهُ عَمْرًا in example (59) is not a complete sentence. ضَارِبٌ itself, as a single word, is the info of the subject زَيْدٌ.9 So example (59) زَيْدٌ ضَارِبٌ أَبُوهُ عَمْرًا is not a compound sentence.

The info ضَارِبٌ in example (59) زَيْدٌ ضَارِبٌ أَبُوهُ عَمْرًا is called a sababi info.10 A deverbal noun is termed sababi when it governs a doer which is annexed to a pronoun that refers back to the original referent of the deverbal noun.11 In our example, the deverbal noun ضَارِبٌ governs a doer أَب which is annexed to a pronoun هُ that refers back to the original referent of the deverbal noun, the subject زَيْد.

26.7.1 Varying the number or gender of the overt doer of the sababi info

Here is another example of a sentence with a sababi info:

  1. كَانَ زَيْدٌ مُنْطَلِقًا أَبُوهُ [Peled, Sentence types 208]
    Zayd – his father was setting out.

In example (60) above, مُنْطَلِقًا is the sababi info of كَانَ. The overt doer of the مُنْطَلِقًا is the singular masculine noun أَبُوه his father.

Let’s see what happens when we vary the number or gender of this overt doer of the sababi info.

  1. كَانَ الزَيْدَانِ مُنْطَلِقًا أَبَوَاهُمَا [Peled, Sentence types 208]
    The two Zayds – their fathers were setting out.

In example (61) above, the sababi info مُنْطَلِقًا remains in the singular, even though its doer is the dual أَبَوَاهُمَا.

This is analagous to a verb, which remains in the singular for dual and plural doers. For example كَانَ الزَيْدَانِ يَنْطَلِقُ أَبَوَاهُمَا, etc.

If the gender of the doer participle’s doer is feminine, then the doer participle remains in the singular but it is feminized. For example:

  1. زَيْدٌ مُنْطَلِقَةٌ أُمُّهُ
    Zayd – his mother is setting out.

  2. كَانَتْ هِنْدٌ مُنْطَلِقَةً خَالَتَاهَا
    Hind – her two maternal aunts were setting out.

This again is analagous to the feminizing a verb that has a feminine doer.

If the doer of the doer participle is a plural, then we have an choice:

If the doer participle has a sound plural, then, again, it is not used and the doer participle remains in the singular. For example:

  1. كَانَ الزَيْدُونَ مُنْطَلِقًا آبَاؤُهُمْ
    The Zayds – their fathers were setting out.

  2. زَيْدٌ مُنْطَلِقَةٌ خَالَاتُهُ
    Zayd – his maternal aunts are setting out.

But if the doer participle has a broken plural, then it is allowed to be used, and is indeed preferred,12 when the doer is a plural.

For example:

  1. كَانَ الزَّيْدُونَ قِيَامًا آبَاؤُهُمْ
    The Zayds – their fathers were standing

Here are some examples of sababi infos from the Qurʾān:

  1. فَإِنَّهُۥۤ ءَاثِمࣱ قَلۡبُهُۥۗ [سورة البقرة 2:283]
    his heart is indeed sinful
    (Other analyses besides a sababi info are also possible.13 One such differing analysis is discussed in section (ref) below.)

  2. وَظَنُّوۤا۟ أَنَّهُم مَّانِعَتُهُمۡ حُصُونُهُم مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ [سورة الحشر 59:2]
    and they thought that their fortresses would protect them from Allāh
    (Another analysis is also possible: حُصُونُهُمْ can be a subject, and مَانِعَتُهُمْ is its fronted info.14)

26.7.2 Word order of the doer and the direct doee in a sababi info

If the doer participle is transitive, then the normal word order is doer participle, doer, direct doee. For example:

  1. هَذَا ضَارب أَبوهُ زيدا [الهمع للسيوطي 3/89]
    This [person] – his father is beating Zayd.

But the direct doee can be made to precede the doer thus:

  1. هذا ضارب زيدا أبوه [حاشية الصبان على شرح الأشمونى لألفية ابن مالك 2/453]
    This [person] – his father is beating Zayd.

26.8 The sababi attribute

In section (ref) above we have seen how a doer participle can govern a overt doer when it is a sababi info. In a similar manner, a doer participle can govern a overt doer when it is a sababi attribute.

Consider the following example:

  1. مَرَرْتُ بِرَجُلٍ مُنْطَلِقٍ أَبُوهُ
    I passed by a man whose father is setting out

The doer participle مُنْطَلِقٍ is a attribute of the attributee رَجُلٍ. Because it is a sababi attribute, it has a doer أَب that is annexed to a pronoun هُ which refers to the attributee رَجُلٍ.

We know that, in general, a attribute will match its attributee in four aspects:

  1. state
  2. definiteness
  3. gender
  4. number (singular/dual/plural)

The sababi attribute will also match its preceding attributee in state and definiteness. (You can see the attribute مُنْطَلِقٍ matches its attributee رَجُلٍ in the i-state and in being indefinite.) But in matching gender and number the sababi attribute has different rules. Consistent with we learned for the sababi info above, the sababi attribute will, in general, always be singular, and it will match its doer in gender. Here are some examples that show different combinations:

  1. مَرَرْتُ بِالرَّجُلِ الْمُنْطَلِقِ أَبُوهُ
    I passed by the man whose father is setting out.

  2. مَرَرْتُ بِرَجُلٍ مُنْطَلِقٍ أَخَوَاهُ
    I passed by a man whose two brothers are setting out.

  3. رَأَيْتُ رِجَالًا مُنْطَلِقًا آبَاؤُهُمْ
    I saw men whose fathers are setting out.

  4. رَأَيْتُ رَجُلًا مُنْطَلِقَةً أُمُّهُ
    I saw a man whose mother is setting out.

  5. جَاءَنِي زَيْدٌ الْمُنْطَلِقَةُ أَخَوَاتُهُ
    Zayd whose sisters are setting out came to me.

  6. جَاءَتْنِي امْرَأَةٌ مُنْطَلِقٌ أَبُوهَا
    A woman whose father is setting out came to me.

  7. مَرَرْتُ بِالْمَرْأَةِ الْمُنْطَلِقِ أَخَوَاهَا
    I passed by the woman whose two brothers are setting out.

The above examples use the doer participle مُنْطَلِق which only has sound plurals. Therefore it remains in the singular. If an doer participle has a broken plural, it is permitted (and in fact preferred) to use the broken plural for a plural doer.15 Examples:

  1. مَرَرْت بِرِجَال قيام آباؤهم [شرح قطر الندى وبل الصدى 288]
    I passed by men whose fathers are standing.

  2. مَرَرْت برجل قعُود غلمانه [شرح قطر الندى وبل الصدى 288]
    I passed by a man whose slave-boys are sitting
    (Note that the attributee رَجُل is singular in this case.)

Some more aspects of gender agreement of the sababi doer with its governing deverbal noun will be discussed in section (sifah_mush sababi na3t), if Allāh wills.

26.9 The doer participle as the governor of a non-sababi overt doer

When the doer of the doer participle is overt then it will often be a sababi doer, as we have seen in sections (sababi-xabar) and (sababi-na3t) above. However, it is also possible for the doer participle to govern a non-sababi overt doer. For example:

  1. مررت برجل متكلمٍ محمدٌ في داره [البسيط لابن أبي الربيع 1075]
    I passed by a man [whom] Muḥammad was speaking in his house.

In the example above محمد is the doer of the doer participle متكلم. But because it is not annexed to a pronoun which refers back to رجل, therefore it is not a sababi doer.

26.10 Conditions for the doer participle to govern a doer

In section (ref) above, we discussed the conditions for the doer participle to govern a direct doee. Correspondingly, there exist conditions for the doer participle to govern a doer.

The doer participle can have either an overt doer (either as a noun or as a pronoun), or a latent doer pronoun. We will treat each of these separately below:

26.10.1 Conditions for the doer participle to govern an overt doer

The grammarians differed with regard to the conditions under which the doer participle is allowed to govern an overt doer. According to some, the same conditions are applicable as for governing a direct doee, namely that when an doer participle is not defined by ٱل, then it can only govern an overt doer when

  1. It has an imperfect aspect.
  2. It has governing support

So it is not allowed to govern an overt doer for a perfect aspect. The following example would then be disallowed:

  1. ✗ زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ أَبُوهُ أَمْسِ [الضمير المستتر لسعود بن عبيد الله الصاعدي 134]
    Zayd – his father stood yesterday.

Other grammarians, however, allowed such a sentence.16

when an doer participle is defined by ٱل, then it can only govern an overt doer unconditionally. So it can govern with perfective aspect and without governing support. Examples:

  1. جاءني القائم أبوه [شرح ألفية ابن مالك للشاطبي 1/449]
    The one whose father is standing came.

  2. القائم أبوه ضاحك [التذييل والتكميل لأبي حيان 3/257]
    The one whose father is standing is laughing.

  3. جاء الضارب أبوه زيدًا أمس [شرح ابن الناظم على ألفية ابن مالك 59]
    The one whose father beat Zayd yesterday came.

26.10.2 Conditions for the doer participle to govern a latent doer pronoun

As a default, the doer participle requires a latent doer pronoun. So it governs a latent doer pronoun unconditionally, except when it is prevented from doing so because of one of the following situations:

The doer participle is already governing an overt doer noun

If the doer participle is already governing an overt doer, then it will not also have a latent doer pronoun. This is because one doer participle cannot have two doers.17 Example:

  1. زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ أَبُوهُ [الضمير المستتر لسعود بن عبيد الله الصاعدي 139]
    Zayd – his father is standing

Beware though, that sometimes it may appear that an doer participle is governing an overt doer, but actually another interpretation may also be possible. Consider the following āyah that we discussed in section (ref) above:

  1. فَإِنَّهُۥۤ ءَاثِمࣱ قَلۡبُهُۥۗ [سورة البقرة 2:283]
    his heart is indeed sinful

We had discussed this as a case of a sababi info. But another analysis is also possible: The doer participle آثِمٌ is governing a latent doer pronoun, and قَلْبُهُ is a sub for the latent doer pronoun.18

The doer participle is already governing an overt doer pronoun

We discussed in section (ref) above, a situation in which the originally latent doer pronoun of a doer participle becomes overt. Because the doer is now overt the doer participle will not govern an additional latent doer.19

  1. زَيْدٌ هِنْدٌ ضَارِبُهَا هُوَ [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 1/207]
    Zayd – Hind – [he] is beating her.
    (i.e. Zayd is beating Hind.)

The doer participle is the annexe noun in a real annexation

When doer participle is the annexe noun in a real annexation, then it will not govern a latent doer pronoun.20 This can happen when the doer participle indicates a perfective aspect. We saw an example of this in the conditions for governing a direct doee above:

  1. هذا ضارب زيد أمس [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/106]
    This [person] was the beater of Zayd yesterday.

By the way, this does not mean that the doer participle cannot govern a latent doer pronoun whenever it signifies a perfective aspect. It only cannot do so in a real annexation. So doer participle will govern a latent doer pronoun when it has a perfective aspect, but no annexation. For example:

  1. هذا ضاربٌ أمس
    This [person] was a beater yesterday.

The doer participle has crossed over to a substantive

When the doer participle has crossed over to a substantive (see section (ref) below), then, in general, it does not govern a latent doer pronoun.21. For example:

  1. زَيْدٌ صَاحِبٌ
    Zayd is a companion

But even for substantives, the the latent doer pronoun can re-emerge when needed (see section (sec-the-doer-participle-crossover-to-substantive-as-a-attribute)).

26.11 Superficial annexation

Superficial annexation used to eliminate tanwīn

Consider again the sentence:

  1. زَيْدٌ ضَارِبٌ عَمْرًا
    zaydun ḍāribun 3amran
    Zayd is beating Amr

The doer participle ضَارِبٌ has a tanwīn which is pronounced before pronouncing the direct doee عَمْرًا. In an effort to make the pronunciation easier, this tanwīn is often eliminated and replaced with an annexation. The direct doee is then made into a base noun in the i-state. The meaning remains the same. So the above sentence then becomes:

  1. زَيْدٌ ضَارِبُ عَمْرٍو
    zaydun ḍāribu 3amrin
    Zayd is beating Amr

This is called a superficial annexation, as opposed to a real annexation, which is what we have been studying so far. This is because it is only an annexation for the purposes of easing the pronunciation, not in meaning.

Regarding terminology, عَمْرٍو syntactically becomes a base noun in the superficial annexation. But in meaning, it is still the direct doee of the doer participle ضَارِب. We will refer to it as the semantic direct doee.

By the way, the sentence زَيْدٌ ضَارِبُ عَمْرٍو can also be a real annexation. In which case, the meaning will be: Zayd is the beater of Ɛamr. So if we come across such a sentence, how can we tell if it is a real annexation or a superficial annexation? The answer is, in this case, context should guide us. We will see below that the superficial annexation is not always identical in form to the real annexation. So in those cases, the form of the annexation will tell us whether it is a real annexation or a superficial annexation.

Here are some more examples of a superficial annexation used to eliminate a tanwīn:

  1. الْهِنْدَاتُ ضارباتُ عمرٍو [modified from شرح التصريح على التوضيح 1/682]
    The Hinds are beating Ɛamr
    (instead of ضارباتٌ عمرًا)

When the doer participle is a semi-flexible, it will not have a tanwīn. But the superficial annexation may still be used in such a case because a tanwīn would have been present if the word were fully-flexible.22 For example:

  1. الْهِنْدَاتُ ضواربُ عَمْرٍو [modified from شرح التصريح على التوضيح 1/682]
    The Hinds are beating Ɛamr
    (instead of ضواربُ عمرًا)

Superficial annexation used to eliminate the ن of a dual or plural suffix

The superficial annexation is used in situations when the governing doer participle has tanwīn (as above), and also in situations when it ends with a ن arising from a dual or sound plural. Examples:

  1. الزَّيْدَانِ ضاربا عَمْرٍو [modified from شرح التصريح على التوضيح 1/682]
    The [two] Zayds are beating Ɛamr
    (instead of ضاربانِ عَمْرًا)

Definiteness of the superficial annexation

Because this is a superficial and not a real annexation, the annexe noun is not made definite by a definite base noun. In the examples so far, the base nouns have been proper nouns (زَيْد, عَمْرو) which are definite. But the doer participles (ضَارِب, ضَارِبَا, etc.) remain indefinite, because they did not originally have ٱل when governing a direct doee. This example proves the above claim:

  1. هَدۡیَۢا بَـٰلِغَ ٱلۡكَعۡبَةِ [سورة المائدة 5:95 cited by شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 4/84]
    as an offering [to Allāh] delivered to the Kaʿbah

In example (93) above, the doer participle بَالِغ is a annexe noun to the definite base noun الْكَعْبَة. But this is a superficial annexation. So بَالِغ does not become definite. Therefore بَالِغ can be a attribute to the indefinite هَدْيًا.

If the doer participle is to be made definite in a superficial annexation then a ٱل is added to it. For example:

  1. هذان الضاربا زيدٍ [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/132]
    These two are the beaters of Zayd.
    (instead of هذان الضاربان زيدًا)

  2. وَٱلۡمُقِیمِی ٱلصَّلَوٰةِ [سورة الحج 22:35 cited by شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/132]
    and the establishers of prayer

Adding ٱل to the annexe noun is particular to a superficial annexation. As we know, it is not permitted in a real annexation. So when we see ٱل with a annexe noun, then we will know that the annexation has to be a superficial one.

When the doer participle does not have tanwīn or a suffixed ن

Consider the following case of a doer participle governing a direct doee:

  1. الضَّارِبُ زَيْدًا
    the beater of Zayd

There is no tanwīn of suffixed ن after the doer participle. Therefore, a superficial annexation is not permitted, and we cannot say:

  1. ✗ الضَّارِبُ زَيْدٍ [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/132]

The following are similarly not permitted:

  1. ✗ الضارب رجلٍ [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/47]
    the beater of the man

  2. ✗ الضَّارِبُ عَبْدِ زَيْدٍ [Wright 2/66B] the beater of the slave of Zayd

  3. ✗ الضَّارِبُ عَبْدِهِ [Wright 2/66B] the beater of his slave

If, however, the direct doee is defined by ٱل, or is itself a annexe noun to a base noun that is defined by ٱل, then, as an exception, the superficial annexation is again permitted.23 For example:

  1. الضَّارِبُ الْعَبْدِ [Wright 2/66A]
    the beater of the slave

  2. الضَّارِبُ رَأْسِ الْعَبْدِ [Wright 2/66A]
    the beater of the head of the slave

  1. الضَّارِبُ الرَّجُلِ [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/132]
    the beater of the man

  2. الضَّوَارِبُ/الضُّرَّابُ/الضَّارِبَاتُ الرَّجُلِ [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/47]
    the beaters of the man

  3. الضَّوَارِبُ/الضُّرَّابُ/الضَّارِبَاتُ غُلَامِ الرَّجُلِ [شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 3/47]
    the beaters of the slave-boy of the man

Two or more direct doees connected by وَ or أَوْ

When a doer participle governs two or more direct doees connected by وَ or أَوْ then, if the first is in a superficial annexation then the second may either be in the i-state or the a-state. For example

  1. هذا ضاربُ زيدٍ وعمرٍو/وعمرًا [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 4/81]
    This [person] is beating Zayd and Ɛamr

By the way, if the first direct doee is in the a-state, then it is not an annexation and the second direct doee would follow in the a-state.

  1. هذا ضاربٌ زيدًا وعمرًا
    This [person] is beating Zayd and Ɛamr

Superficial annexation with a overt doer

Consider an doer participle that has a overt doer and is governing a direct doee thus:

  1. مررت برجل ضارب أبوه زيدا [شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 2/458]
    I passed by a man whose father [was] beating Zayd.

If we wish to use a superficial annexation, then the doer participle can only be annexed to its direct doee and not to its doer. So we can say:

  1. مررت برجل ضارب زيد أبوه [شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 2/74]
    I passed by a man whose father [was] beating Zayd.
    (Remember from section (ref) above that the word order ضَارِبٌ زَيْدًا أَبُوهُ is permissible.)

We cannot say:

  1. ✗ مررت برجل ضارب أَبِيهِ زيدا [التذييل والتكميل لأبي حيان 10/359]

26.12 The doer participle with a pronoun as its direct doee

When the doer participle governs a direct doee that is a pronoun, there is considerable variation seen

One possibility is is to separate the doer participle from its doee pronoun using the prefix إِيَّا, thus:

  1. ضَارِبٌ إِيَّاكَ [شرح الرضي على الكافية 2/434]
    beating you

  2. الضَارِبُ إِيَّاكَ [شرح الرضي على الكافية 2/434]
    the beater of you

  3. الضَارِبُونَ إِيَّاهُ [Wright 2/67A]
    the beaters of me

The second possibility, and by far the more common usage, is to use a superficial annexation, thus:

  1. ضَارِبُكَ [شرح الرضي على الكافية 2/434]
    beating you

  2. الضَارِبُكَ [شرح الرضي على الكافية 2/434]
    the beater of you

  3. الضارِبِي [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/135]
    the beater of me

  4. الضارباتِي [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/135]
    the beatersf of me

When the doer participle has a overt doer, then it will follow the attached pronoun, thus:

  1. هَذَا ضَارِبِي أَبُوهُ
    This [person] – his father is beating me.

For the dual and sound ūn plural in a superficial annexation, the ن of the suffix is regularly deleted. So we will say:

  1. هذان ضارباك [شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 1/196]
    These two are beating you.
    (from ضاربان)

  2. هؤلاء ضاربوك [شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 1/196]
    These [persons] are beating you.
    (from ضاربون)

  3. الضارِباك [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/135]
    the two beaters of you
    (from الضاربان)

  4. الضارِبوك [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/135]
    the beaters of you
    (from الضاربون)

  5. ضاربايَ [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/135]
    the two beaters of me
    (from الضاربَان)

  6. الضارِبَيَّ [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/135]
    the two beaters of me
    (from الضاربَيْن)

  7. الضارِبِيَّ [شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/135]
    the beaters of me
    (from الضاربِين and الضاربون)

Occasionally a ن is inserted between the doer participle annexe noun and the pronoun base noun. This would permit words like: ضَارِبُنِي, الضَّارِبُونِي, etc. For example:

  1. فَهَلْ أَنْتُمْ صَادِقُونِي فِيهِ 24 [https://hadithunlocked.com/nasai-kubra:11291]
    So will you tell me the truth about it?

It seems that this usage did not make its way to Standard Classical Arabic. But some grammarians permit this usage by poetic license, or as a rare usage.25

26.13 The doee participle as a verb-like governor

https://shamela.ws/book/17116/3534

26.14 The participle-like adjective as a verb-like governor

الأشباه والنظائز: ذكر ما افترق فيه الصفة المشبهة واسم الفاعل

https://shamela.ws/book/13301/1472

https://shamela.ws/book/13301/582#p1

https://shamela.ws/book/9985/799

26.15 The doer of a deverbal noun that fulfils the role of the info

In our discussion of the doer of deverbal nouns, we have consistently stated that the doer of a deverbal noun is not a structural element. This is because the deverbal noun, which has a doer, is typically already part of an existing sentence. See example (59) زَيْدٌ ضَارِبٌ أَبُوهُ عَمْرًا above.

However, there is one special kind of sentence where that the doer of a deverbal noun is a structural element.

Before presenting this special doer-that-fulfils-the-role-of-the-info sentence, we will first give some background. Consider the sentence:

  1. زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ
    Zayd is standing.

In example (127) above, زَيْدٌ is the subject and قَائِمٌ is its info.

We can rearrange the word order to front the info thus:

  1. قَائِمٌ زَيْدٌ
    Standing, Zayd is.

This fronted info will be common in negative and question sentences. For example:

  1. أَقَائِمٌ زَيْدٌ [Wright 2/257B]
    Is Zayd standing?

  2. مَا قَائِمَةٌ هِنْدٌ [Wright 2/257B]
    Hind is not going

Now we come to the special doer-that-fulfils-the-role-of-the-info sentence:

In negative and question sentences like examples (129) and (129) above, the deverbal noun can be analyzed as a subject, and its following doer will fulfil the role of the info.

So, in examples (129) and (129) above, قَائِمٌ can be considered a subject زَيْدٌ and can be its doer that fulfils the role of the info. Now, you might be thinking: what is the reason for this strange doer-that-fulfils-the-role-of-the-info analysis?

Why can’t we just consider قَائِمٌ a fronted info and زَيْدٌ the backed subject?

The answer is that we can indeed consider قَائِمٌ a fronted info and زَيْدٌ the backed subject as one option. But, as another option, the doer-that-fulfils-the-role-of-the-info analysis allows us to keep the deverbal noun in the singular for dual and plural subjects. So we can say:

  1. أَقَائِمٌ الزَّيْدَانِ
    Are the two Zayds standing?

  2. مَا ذَاهِبَةٌ الْهِنْدَاتُ
    The Hinds are not going

Sentences (131) and (132) are legitimate, but are only permitted for negative and question sentences.26 If it is not a negative or question sentence, then the doer-that-fulfils-the-role-of-the-info construction is not permitted. So the following are not correct as complete sentences:

  1. ✗ قَائِمٌ الزَّيْدَانِ
    The two Zayds are standing.

  2. ✗ ذَاهِبَةٌ الْهِنْدَاتُ
    The Hinds are going

This is because the deverbal noun قَائِم cannot govern the overt doers الزَّيْدَانِ and الْهِنْدَاتُ without the governing support that is provided by being in a negative or question sentence.

So when it is not a negative or question sentence, then only the fronted info construction is permitted and the info will typically match the backed subject in number and gender. For example:

  1. قَائِمَانِ الزَّيْدَانِ
    Standing, the two Zayds are.

  2. ذَاهِبَاتٌ الْهِنْدَاتُ
    Going, the Hinds are.

The fronted info construction is also permitted, as an option, even for negative and question sentences. For example:

  1. أَقَائِمَانِ الزَّيْدَانِ
    Are the two Zayds standing?

  2. مَا ذَاهِبَاتٌ الْهِنْدَاتُ
    The Hinds are not going

When the deverbal noun and the doer are both singular, and it is a negative or question sentence, then a double analysis is possible27:

  1. the fronted info analysis
  2. the doer-that-fulfils-the-role-of-the-info analysis

Such is the case in examples (129) أَقَائِمٌ زَيْدٌ and (130) مَا قَائِمَةٌ هِنْدٌ above.

Here are some more examples of doer-that-fulfils-the-role-of-the-info sentences:

  1. هَلْ مَضْرُوبٌ بَنُوكَ [Wright 2/257C]
    Are your sons beaten?
    (بَنُو is a deputy doer.)

  2. أَرَاغِبٌ أَنتَ عَنۡ ءَالِهَتِی یَـٰۤإِبۡرَ ٰ⁠هِیمُۖ [سورة مريم 19:46 cited by Wright 2/257D]
    Have you no desire for my gods, O Abraham?
    (A double analysis is reportedly possible, but the doer-that-fulfils-the-role-of-the-info analysis is preferred.28)

  3. خَلِيلَيَّ مَا وَافٍ بِعَهْدِي أَنْتُمَا [Wright 2/257D]
    My two friends, you are not keeping my promise.

  4. أَمُنْجِزٌ أَنْتُمْ وَعْدًا وَثِقْتُ بِهِ [Wright 2/257D]
    Are you fulfiling a promise that I put my trust on?

26.16 The maṣdar as a verb-like governor

https://shamela.ws/book/36130/1479#p1

مسألة الفرق بين اسم الفاعل والمصدر في العمل - كتاب ما لم ينشر من الأمالي الشجرية - ابن الشجري

الدرر السنية

  1. Non-agreement of Mubtada and Khabar↩︎

  2. haazimi 30/5 https://shamela.ws/book/36130/531↩︎

  3. See also Wright 2/69CD, Fischer §203 Note 2 p. 113 (who consider this strengthening-لِ obligatory), and النحو الوافي 2/475–476 (who doesn’t consider it obligatory).↩︎

  4. النحو الوافي 3/263↩︎

  5. شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 4/97↩︎

  6. See also البحر المحيط لأبي حيان for سورة فاطر 35:1 and الدر المصون للسمين الحلبي for سورة فاطر 35:1↩︎

  7. النحو الوافي 3/254↩︎

  8. شرح ابن عقيل على الألفية 1/207↩︎

  9. مختصر المعاني للتفتازاني 86↩︎

  10. الخبر السببي لوجيهة السطل; الأشباه والنظائر للسيوطي 4/287↩︎

  11. شرح ألفية ابن مالك للشاطبي 4/404 (also cited by الضمير المستتر لسعود بن عبيد الله الصاعدي 161)↩︎

  12. البسيط لابن أبي الربيع 693–694 cited by Peled, Sentence types 208 (footnote)↩︎

  13. الدر المصون للسمين الحلبي for سورة البقرة 2:283↩︎

  14. الدر المصون للسمين الحلبي for سورة الحشر 59:2↩︎

  15. شرح قطر الندى وبل الصدى 288; النحو الوافي 3/453–454↩︎

  16. الضمير المستتر لسعود بن عبيد الله الصاعدي 134↩︎

  17. الضمير المستتر لسعود بن عبيد الله الصاعدي 139↩︎

  18. الدر المصون للسمين الحلبي for سورة البقرة 2:283↩︎

  19. الضمير المستتر لسعود بن عبيد الله الصاعدي 144↩︎

  20. الضمير المستتر لسعود بن عبيد الله الصاعدي 142↩︎

  21. See citations in الضمير المستتر لسعود بن عبيد الله الصاعدي 154↩︎

  22. شرح التصريح على التوضيح 1/682↩︎

  23. Wright 2/66A↩︎

  24. also narrated as صَادِقِيَّ in صحيح البخاري :3169↩︎

  25. See for more details شرح كتاب سيبويه للسيرافي 2/44; النحو الوافي 1/285; شرح ابن يعيش على المفصل 2/137; Wright 2/67AB↩︎

  26. Some grammarians did not require this condition based on the sentence خَبِيرٌ بَنُو لِهْبٍ. For details on the dispute, see أوضح المسالك لابن هشام 1/191 footnote 3.↩︎

  27. Wright 2/258A↩︎

  28. See البحر المحيط لأبي حيان for سورة مريم 19:46↩︎