Not ready for study.
24 The Arabic grammatical tradition
THIS BOOK IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY HAVE TYPOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER ERRORS. IT IS NOT YET READY FOR STUDY.
24.1 History of the Arabic grammatical tradition
During the time of the Prophet ﷺ, the Arabs spoke Classical Arabic natively.
After the time of the Prophet ﷺ, during the Ras͡hidūn caliphate (11–41 ah), the borders of the Islāmic state had expanded beyond the Arabian peninsula. This brought upon an increased intermingling between Arab and non-Arab populations, especially in the towns and urban centers.
There are reports that, during this time, there was an increased occurrence of grammatical and pronunciation errors in spoken Arabic, especially by non-Arabs and the newer generation.
The reports also claim, that in order to safeguard the Qurʾān from being read incorrectly, efforts began to preserve Classical Arabic. This outline of events is traditionally credited as the inception of the Arabic grammatical tradition, and of the profession of the grammarian.
It is difficult to establish the authenticity of many of these reports. So we are not certain who would qualify to be the first grammarians, nor are we certain of the extent of their grammatical discourse. We do know that the early grammarians of the first and early second centuries ah, were definitely able to distinguish between correct and incorrect language.1 But their terminology and grammatical analysis were presumably rudimentary.2
However, in the latter half of the second century ah, Arabic grammar had already developed, from these primitive beginnings, into a highly developed system of linguistic analysis.3
Initially, grammatical research was centered mainly in two places: the cities of al-Baṣrah and al-Kūfah, in Iraq. These Baṣran and Kūfan schools were mainly active, in their eponymous cities, into the third century ah. After that, grammarians would still often be affiliated academically to one of the two schools, but they were more geographically widespread. Many famous later grammarians operated out of Bag͡hdād, Egypt, Syria, Persia, and al-Andalus (Islāmic Spain).
Figure 24.1 depicts a (year of death) timeline and geographical distribution of some of the more well-known grammarians.
24.2 Attested usage (السَّماع)
In order to develop a grammatical framework for Classical Arabic, the grammarians first needed a collection of authentic Classical Arabic texts. The grammarians used, as their source material for this collection, a corpus of Classical Arabic texts, which we will term attested usage. The body of attested usage can be categorized into5:
- Transmitted texts. These include:
- Authorized readings of the Qurʾān
- Poetry of the pre-Islāmic and early Islāmic poets
- A collection of the sayings and proverbs of the Arabs
- the Ḥadīt͡h
- Elicited speech
We will discuss these categories below:
The Qurʾān
The Qurʾān was transmitted by the Prophet ﷺ to his Companions. When the territories under the Islāmic caliphate expanded, many of the Companions were sent or relocated to the different areas under Muslim rule, and there, they began teaching the Qurʾān to their students from the Tābiɛīn. Those students taught it to the next generation and so on and so forth. The text of the Qurʾān was thus available to the grammarians and used by them as a primary linguistic source.6
Poetry
From pre-Islāmic times into the Islāmic era, Classical Arabic poetry was composed and transmitted orally, from region to region, and from generation to generation. The grammarians used this transmitted poetry as their second major source of transmitted data.7
Some native Arabic dialects were beginning to diverge from Classical Arabic in the first and second century ah. Because of this, the grammarians were more discerning in whether they would accept the poetry of a later poet. Generally they would only accept the poetry of a later poet if his language was determined to be uninfluenced by the newer developments in the native dialects. The grammarians generally have a cut-off date somewhere in the middle of the first century ah. Poetry composed after this cut-off date is typically not accepted as a valid source of Classical Arabic.8
Sayings and proverbs of the Arabs
A small portion of prose material, consisting of sayings and proverbs of the Arabs, is also generally accepted as a source of Classical Arabic data.9
The Ḥadīt͡h
The Ḥadīt͡h of the Prophet ﷺ were transmitted by his Companions to their students from the Tābiɛīn, who then transmitted them to their students from the next generation, and so on. Theoretically, the Ḥadīt͡h texts should be considered a valid source of Classical Arabic. However, as a trend, the grammarians were reluctant to consider the transmitted Ḥadīt͡h texts as part of attested usage. This is because they feared that some of the narrators in the chains of transmission of ḥadīt͡h may have narrated their ḥadīt͡h by meaning, rather than verbatim text. And if the narrator was himself not a native Classical Arabic speaker, then the grammarians could not be certain that the ḥadīt͡h that reached them was correct Classical Arabic. They did not have this view regarding the Qurʾān and poetry because the Qurʾān and poetry required that they be transmitted verbatim.
This policy of the grammarians has received some criticism, with some researchers deeming that they were unnecessarily exclusive, and that if the transmitters of a ḥadīt͡h are deemed competent, then the ḥadīt͡h should be admitted into attested usage. In this sense, Ḥadīt͡h texts should be considered at least as acceptable as poetry, since the possibility of variation in transmission is applicable to both.10 In any case, we note that if the grammarians erred then it was on the side of caution.
Elicited speech
In addition to the transmitted texts mentioned above, the grammarians also used, as part of their source data, samples of speech that they obtained themselves by meeting and talking to native Classical Arabic speaking informants. Such informants continued to exist, in pockets, into the second and third centuries ah. In general, the speech of the bedouin Arabs was considered purer and more free from errors than that of the urban population. The grammarians would seek out such informants, listen to their ordinary speech in natural settings, and also ask them questions, the answers to which would betray insight into the grammatical issues that they were investigating.11
Exclusion of the grammarians’ writings from attested usage
The grammarians were scholars of Classical Arabic. Yet, generally speaking, they were not native speakers of Classical Arabic. So even though they were knowledgeable in analyzing Classical Arabic, they had not learned it natively. So their writings are not considered attested usage.12 Excepted are examples that the grammarians made up and adduced to explain a particular grammatical issue.13 Those are admitted into attested usage, though subject to critique by other grammarians.14
24.3 Analogy (القِياس) and grammatical reason (العِلّة)
Once the source material from attested usage was available to the grammarians, they set about analyzing it in order to develop a grammatical framework The process of developing a grammatical framework is based on analogy and grammatical reason.
Analogy is the process of observing a pattern in attested usage, determining a grammatical reason for the pattern, and expounding a grammatical rule that states that whenever the grammatical reason is to be found, then the pattern is to be expected.15
Let’s explain what we mean.
Let’s say, hypothetically, the grammarian goes through the data in attested usage, and comes across sentences like:
جَاء الرَّجُلُ
The man came.ضَرَبَ زَيْدٌ عَمْرًا
Zayd beat Ɛamr.يَدْخُلُ الْبَيْتَ رَجُلٌ
A man enters the house.لَنْ يَضِيعَ الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ
The good deed shall not go waste.لَمْ تَذْهَبْ هِنْدٌ
Hind did not go.
When the grammarian studies these sentences he notes that they are all verbal sentences consisting of (at least) a verb and its doer. He also observes a pattern. And that is that the doer of the verb is always in the u-state. Now, he comes up with a grammatical rule that states that whenever there is a verbal sentence (this is our grammatical reason), then the doer of the verb is be in the u-state.
This rule is made for the benefit of the student who has not gone through the data in attested usage. Let’s say that a student is reading a text and comes across a sentence:
- ضَرَبَ عَمْرًا زَيْدٌ
Zayd beat Ɛamr.
The student determines that this is a verbal sentence. Being a verbal sentence is the grammatical reason that makes the above analogy-based rule applicable. Now the student observes that ضَرَبَ is the verb, and following it are two nouns: عَمْرًا in the a-state, and زَيْدٌ in the u-state. Applying the rule, he detrmines that the person who did the beating is Zayd, not Ɛamr. This will give him a correct understanding of the text.
Furthermore, if the student wishes to construct his own verbal sentence, attempting to conform to sca, then he knows that he will have to put the verb’s doer in the u-state.
24.4 Anomalous usage (الشَّاذّ)
Sometimes a pattern occurs often enough in attested usage that a rule is built upon it using analogy. However, occurrences contrary to the pattern are also found in attested usage. This usage which is contrary to analogy is called anomalous usage.
Let’s take a look at an example of anomalous usage. When the second letter of a root is و, then its stem-10 perfect verb is regularly formed by transforming the و into an alif. This is done according to analogy. For example:
| Root | stem-10 perfect verb |
|---|---|
| قوم | اسْتَقَامَ to be steadfast |
| عوذ | اسْتَعَاذَ to seek refuge |
| نور | اسْتَنَارَ to seek light |
In anomalous usage, a few roots whose middle letters are و, usually form their stem-10 perfect verbs by keeping the و. For example:
| Root | stem-10 perfect verb |
|---|---|
| حوذ | اسْتَحْوَذَ to gain mastery, overcome |
| صوب | اسْتَصْوَبَ to consider (هـ s.th) to be right |
By the way, اسْتَحَاذَ and اسْتَصَابَ are also found in attested usage, albeit less frequently.
The general principle, when dealing with anomalous usage, is that it should be limited to what is found in attested usage, and not be extended by analogy.
So the rule for forming stem-10 perfect verb for roots that have و as the middle letter, is that the verbs should be formed generally by transforming the و into an alif, like اسْتَقَامَ and اسْتَعَاذَ. But for the few verbs that fall into anomalous usage, we should prefer to keep the و, thus: اسْتَحْوَذَ and اسْتَصْوَبَ. The forms اسْتَحَاذَ and اسْتَصَابَ are permissible but less preferred.16
The grammarians have not always agreed over how to deal with different anomalous usages. As an example, when an adjectival noun is on the pattern أَفْعَل, like أَبْيَض white and أَسْوَد black, then a comparative noun for it on the same pattern أَفْعَل is regularly not found to be used in attested usage. So أَبْيَض is not usually found in attested usage to mean more white. However, this meaning is found as anomalous usage, as in the verse of poetry:
- جَارِيَةٌ فِي دِرْعِهَا الفَضْفَاضِ ~ أَبْيَضُ مِنْ أُخْتِ بَنِي إِبَاضِ [القياس في اللغة العربية لمحمد الخضر حسين 42]
A girl in her full long shirt ~ whiter than a [woman of the tribe] of Banū Ibāḍ
Some grammarians were of the opinion, that because of the usage of أَبْيَض in the above verse to mean whiter, this can be extended by analogy generally. So whenever a adjectival noun is on the pattern أَفْعَل, a comparative noun can also be formed for it on the same pattern. Other grammarians were more conservative and did not extend this usage by analogy.17
24.5 The balance between analogy and attested usage
The ultimate authority for what is correct Classical Arabic is attested usage. Analogy-based rules are a means to understand sca correctly, and a guide to form sentences that attempt to conform to sca.
Analogy is a speculative process on the part of the grammarians.18 As such, it is subjective, and rules derived from analogy may need to be revised and refined in order to sufficiently explain the language. Natural language, however, is very complex and analogy-based rules, even if continually revised and refined, can perhaps never capture its full complexity.
Because of this, Attested usage, in general, should not be rejected on the basis of analogy. And an analogy, even if it were sound, should not be applied if it leads to something that is contrary to attested usage.19
24.6 Classical Arabic dialects and sca
Classical Arabic consisted of multiple dialects that were spoken by the various tribes of the Arabs in the different regions of the Arabian peninsula. When the grammarians developed analogy-based rules from attested usage, they would often grade the usages in the different dialects. Even within a dialect, sometimes there are multiple permissible ways to construct an expression. For forming analogy-based rules, the grammarians would often select, out of the various usages, a more normative one, or a more eloquent one, or a more preferred one, or what they deemed a more original one.
Standard Classical Arabic (sca) is the de facto standard variety of Classical Arabic that became dominant through, amongst other factors, the widespread adoption of the grammarians’ rules.
As an example, the grammarians discuss a dialectal usage that pluralizes a verb even when the plural doer is mentioned. So speakers of this dialect would say:
- ضَرَبُونِي قَوْمُكَ [الكتاب لسيبويه 2/40]
Your people beat me.
instead of the more normative:
- ضَرَبَنِي قَوْمُكَ
The dialectal usage of example () is graded as rare.20 It did not make its way into sca. Instead, the more common usage in example () became the standard.
24.7 Virtual modeling (التَّقْدِير)
In analyzing attested usage, the grammarians were attempting to build a comprehensive and coherent grammar of Classical Arabic. During this process, they saw that natural speech, even when not anomalous usage, was often too complex to be codified compactly. But they also realized that under the literally uttered speech (termed surface speech), there could be modeled a virtual utterance that existed only in the mind of the speaker.21 This virtual model was more amenable to being wrangled into organized rules.
The grammarians then considered it their role to theorize a virtual model, when needed, under the surface speech, and to build their grammatical framework based on the virtual model.
We will explain what we mean by going through a hypothetical example in the following subsection below.
24.7.1 A virtual model of latent doer pronouns
Let’s say that a grammarian goes through some data in attested usage, and he finds surface speech samples like the following:
قَرَأَ زَيْدٌ
Zayd read.رَجَعَتْ هِنْدٌ
Hind returned.يَذَهَبُ الرِّجَالُ
The men go.
The grammarian asks his native Classical Arabic speaking informant what the informant understands by the above samples. The informant tells the grammarian that he understands each one as having a complete meaning: a meaning that expresses an action (signified by the first word), and the doer of that action, (signified by the second word).
Because each sample has a complete meaning, the grammarian determines that each sample is a complete sentence. He classifies the first word in each sentence as a verb, and the second word as a noun. Based on the abundance of sentences like the above, the grammarian formulates a rule, which is that a verbal sentence needs two parts to be a complete sentence: a verb, followed by its doer (noun).
The grammarian then continues going through attested usage and finds surface speech samples like the following:
تَصَدَّقْنَ
Theyf gave charity.عَمِلْتُ
I worked.تَكْتُبَانِ
You2 are writing.ذَهَبُوا
They went.
Consulting his informant, he finds that these also are complete sentences in their meaning. The informant tells him that the doer of each action is now a person who is not named, but who is known to the informant. So the grammarian classifies the doers as pronouns.
The grammarian also notices that the end of each verb is modified and extra sounds (expressed by letters in the script) are added after it. For example: عَمِلَ + تُ = عَمِلْتُ Based on these observations, the grammarian devises a way, by which these sentences can still be molded to fit into his above stated rule. This is by considering the extra sounds/letters at the end of the verbs (for example, تُ in عَمِلْتُ) to be the doer pronouns. Now the sentences can be considered to have two parts: a verb followed by its doer. So far so good.
But now the grammarian comes across surface speech samples like the following:
ذَهَبَ
He went.رَجَعَتْ
She returned.أَعْمَلُ
I work.نَتَصَدَّقُ
We give charity.
These samples pose a problem for our grammarian. Because his informant tells him that he still understands these samples, in context, to have a complete meaning. The doer of each action is again a person who is not named but who is known to the informant.
So, evidently, samples () through () are complete sentences with pronoun doers, just like samples () through (). But the problem is that there are no apparent extra sounds/letters after the verbs which can be considered the doer.
Some of the verbs in these sentences, like in examples () and (), have extra sounds, but they are before the verb. But some verbs, like in example (), don’t even have that. Example () رَجَعَتْ does have an extra تْ after the verb, but that letter is kept when there is an overt doer noun, like in example () رَجَعَتْ هِنْدٌ above. So the تْ doesn’t seem like it can be the doer. So what is the grammarian to do?
In order to keep the rule consistent, the grammarian virtually models latent doers for these sentences. For example () above, the latent doer is virtually modeled as [هُوَ], thus:
- ذَهَبَ [هُوَ]
He went.
Now the sentence has two parts: the verb ذَهَبَ, followed by it’s doer, the virtually modeled [هُوَ]. Thus it is compliant with the above stated rule that the grammarian developed for verbal sentences.
Here are the other examples with their virtually modeled doers:
رَجَعَتْ [هِيَ]
She returned.أَعْمَلُ [أَنَا]
I work.نَتَصَدَّقُ [نَحْنُ]
We give charity.
In this way, a grammarian was able to formulate a analogy-based grammatical rule based on observation of attested usage and theorization of a virtual model.
24.7.2 A virtual model of أَنْ before a-state stateful verbs
In chapter (ref), we studied how a a-state stateful verb can occur after the particle لِ. For example:
- دَرَسْتُ لِأَنْجَحَ
I studied for the reason [that] I may succeed.
The particle لِ here signifies the meaning for the reason.
The grammarians theorized that between the لِ and the a-state stateful أَنْجَحَ, there existed a virtually modeled أَنْ, thus:
- دَرَسْتُ لِ[أَنْ] أَنْجَحَ
I studied for the reason [that] I may succeed.
And it was this أَنْ that actually caused the stateful verb to be in the a-state. This virtual modeling allowed them to reduce the definition of لِ to a preposition that only precedes nouns. And it granted to أَنْ the sole privelege of causing a stateful verb to be in the a-state.22
The virtual modeling of أَنْ between لِ and a following a-state stateful verb is also supported by the fact that the surface speech can actually have an أَنْ in that position, for the same meaning. So we can actually also say:
- دَرَسْتُ لِأَنْ أَنْجَحَ
I studied for the reason that I may succeed.
As for the restriction of لِ to a preposition that only precedes nouns, then this can be seen when we apply a second level of virtual modeling: and that is to interpret (a surface or virtually modeled) أَنْ and the following a-state stateful verb as a maṣdar construction. So the virtual model of () دَرَسْتُ لِأَنْ أَنْجَحَ is:
- دَرَسْتُ لِنَجَاحِي
I studied for the reason of my success.
(i.e. in order to achieve success.)
In the virtual model in example (), we can see how لِ is a preposition before the i-state noun نَجَاح.
We will see more examples of virtual modeling for the a-state stateful verb in chapter (ref), if Allāh wills.
24.7.3 Some aspects regarding virtual modeling
24.7.3.1 The virtual model often cannot actually be expressed
One point to note, regarding virtual modeling, is that the virtual model representation of a surface speech is often not actually correct as surface speech.23
If we take the virtual model in () ذَهَبَ [هُوَ] as an example, then what we mean is that we don’t actually say (in surface speech) ذَهَبَ هُوَ when we intend to mean He went. The surface speech () ذَهَبَ is the only correct way to express this intended meaning. The representation ذَهَبَ [هُوَ] is only a virtual model of the surface speech ذَهَبَ that elucidates the grammar of the sentence.
Sometimes, however, a virtual model representation can actually be expressed, for the same or similar meaning. This can be, for example, when the virtual model restores a word or expression which is implied and was optionally deleted. For example, we saw that the virtually modeled أَنْ in example () دَرَسْتُ لِأَنْجَحَ can actually be expressed in surface speech, thus:
- دَرَسْتُ لِأَنْ أَنْجَحَ
I studied for the reason that I may succeed.
By the way, coincidentally, ذَهَبَ هُوَ is actually a correct sentence in its own right, but it has a different meaning than the intended ذَهَبَ He went. It uses the pronoun هُوَ as an emphatic follower (see chapter (ref)).
24.7.3.2 The literal representation used in the virtual model may not be real
Another point is that the virtually modeled doers, ([هُوَ], [هِيَ], [أَنَا], and [نَحْنُ] in examples () through () above) are not “real” representations of the latent doer pronouns. They are only written as such because, for his analysis, the grammarian needs some words to represent the latent doer pronouns in the virtual model. And because there are no real words to denote the latent doer pronouns, the grammarian borrows the words that denote the detached pronouns to do so.
As it happens, the virtually modeled latent pronouns are theorized to be (invisible) attached pronouns,24 just like the overt doer pronouns تُ I, نَا we, نَ they3f, etc. Virtually modeling the latent doer pronouns as attached pronouns has benefits that keeps the grammatical framework coherent across different grammatical topics. We will see one such benefit in chapter (ref), when we discuss the emphatic follower.
24.7.3.3 Virtual modeling may required to correctly interpret a text
Consider the following āyah from the Qurʾān:
- وَجَاۤءُو عَلَىٰ قَمِیصِهِۦ بِدَمࣲ كَذِبࣲۚ قَالَ بَلۡ سَوَّلَتۡ لَكُمۡ أَنفُسُكُمۡ أَمۡرࣰاۖ فَصَبۡرࣱ جَمِیلࣱۖ وَٱللَّهُ ٱلۡمُسۡتَعَانُ عَلَىٰ مَا تَصِفُونَ [سورة يوسف 12:18]
And they brought upon his shirt false blood. [Jacob] said, “Rather, your souls have enticed you to something, so patience is most fitting. And Allāh is the one sought for help against that which you describe.”
The part صَبْرٌ جَمِيلٌ has been analyzed as being able to be bear multiple interpretations, all requiring virtual modeling. One analysis is that صَبْرٌ جَمِيلٌ is a subject whose info is deleted. The virtual model for this analysis is:
- صَبْرٌ جَمِيلٌ أَمْثَلُ [الدر المصون للسمين الحلبي for سورة يوسف 12:18]
A beautiful patience is exemplary.
The second analysis is that صَبْرٌ جَمِيلٌ is a info whose subject is deleted. The virtual model for this analysis is:
- أَمْرِي صَبْرٌ جَمِيلٌ [الدر المصون للسمين الحلبي for سورة يوسف 12:18]
My affair is a beautiful patience.
A third analysis is that صَبْرٌ جَمِيلٌ is used as a deputy to a verb (see section (maf3ool mutlaq)) in a command to oneself. The virtual model for this analysis is:
- اصْبِرْ صَبْرًا جَمِيلًا [تفسير ابن عاشور for سورة يوسف 12:18]
Be patient [with] a beautiful patience!
24.7.3.4 Virtual modeling can be used to interpret anomalous usage
Grammarians also sometimes used virtual modeling as a tool to make anomalous usage fit coherently into their grammatical framework.25 For example, if we consider the line of poetry that we discussed in section (ref) above:
- جَارِيَةٌ فِي دِرْعِهَا الفَضْفَاضِ ~ أَبْيَضُ مِنْ أُخْتِ بَنِي إِبَاضِ [القياس في اللغة العربية لمحمد الخضر حسين 42]
A girl in her full long shirt ~ whiter than a [woman of the tribe] of Banū Ibāḍ
أَبْيَض when taken to mean whiter is anomalous usage, as we have mentioned. One attempt to make it fit into the grammarians’ analogy-based rules is by interpreting أَبْيَض not as a comparative noun, but as a adjectival noun synonymous to مُبْيَضَّ white. An implied noun جَسَد body is also inserted.26 Such that the virtual model is:
- فِي دِرْعِهَا جَسَدٌ مُبْيَضٌّ مِنْ أُخْتِ بَنِي إِبَاضِ [الإنصاف للأنباري 1/123]
… in her shirt is a white body from [a woman of the tribe] of Banū Ibāḍ
Needless to say, this is pretty convoluted virtual modeling. Some grammarians would prefer to let such anomalous usage be, and they wouldn’t attempt to force such complicated virtual modeling to make the anomalous usage fit into their analogy-based grammatical system.27
24.7.3.5 There can be multiple ‘levels’ of virtual modeling
In order to fit a surface speech into analogy, there can be multiple ‘levels’ of virtual modeling done. As an example, we saw in section (ref) above that in the sentence () دَرَسْتُ لِأَنْجَحَ, first an أَنْ was virtually modeled between لِ and the a-state stateful thus: () دَرَسْتُ لِأَنْ أَنْجَحَ.
And then a further level of virtual modeling was done, where أَنْ and the following a-state stateful verb was reinterpreted as a maṣdar construction: () دَرَسْتُ لِنَجَاحِي.
Sometimes a virtual model mainly details the meaning of a sentence, rather than its syntactic structure. At all layers, however, virtual modeling serves to explain the grammar of the sentence.
24.7.4 Benefits and risks of virtual modeling
Virtual modeling is an analytic tool that allows the grammarian to discover and reconstruct a theorized structure that underlies surface speech.28 This theorized underlying structure is more basic than the surface structure, and more easily described with a set of rules.29 Without virtual modeling, the set of rules, which the grammarian would have to formulate, would increase greatly to capture all the different variations in surface speech. Furthermore, the rules would be disparate, and would not readily indicate the links between related linguistic phenomena. Those links are more obvious in the virtual model.
Having said that, virtual modeling is essentially a speculative exercise which is done by the grammarian. Because the virtual model, by its very definition, does not manifest in surface speech, the grammarian can only theorize its existence and formulation. As such, virtual modeling entails risks because it is based on the grammarian’s subjective reasoning.30
Therefore, the grammarian does, or should, attempt to validate his virtual modeling approach, to whatever degree possible. One way to do this is by basing the virtual model on the meaning that a native speaker understands from the surface speech, as our hypothetical grammarian did for latent doer pronouns in section (ref) above.
Another way is to attempt to find traces of the virtual model in the surface speech, as was done in section (ref) above, for the virtual modeling of أَنْ between لِ and a following a-state stateful verb.
At the very least, any virtual model should be subservient to, and not contradict, the intended meaning of the surface speech.31
24.8 Difference of opinion between the grammarians
The grammarians sometimes differed with one another regarding the extraction of analogy-based rules from attested usage. We have seen a couple of examples of their differences in the sections above. These differences often, though not always, occur along grammatical school lines, with the Baṣrans having one opinion, and the Kūfans another.32 Sometimes, the difference is more in terminology than anything else. For example, the Baṣrans in their definition of the doer, mandated that the doer can only occur after the verb in word order. The Kūfans on the other hand allowed the doer to occur before the verb. However, both schools allowed sentences like:
- زَيْدٌ جَاءَ
Zayd came.
It’s just that the Kūfans would analyze زَيْدٌ as a doer, whereas the Baṣrans would analyze it as a subject.33
Some more differences between the two schools are that the Kūfans are considered to be more lax in extending analogy-based rules from anomalous usage. Whereas the Baṣrans liked to keep their rules more taut. And they would often attempt to interpret anomalous usage through virtual modeling so that it aligned with their rules.34 Both, however, as a general rule, accepted the anomalous usage as valid attested usage.
The Kūfans are also thought to be more grounded in that they tried to stay closer to attested usage35 rather than venturing into too much virtual modeling.
Generally speaking, the Baṣrans formed their terminology and opinions with a view to building a comprehensive and coherent grammatical system. And it is their terminology and opinions that became the standard among later grammarians. Nevertheless, the Kūfan view is often brought in as a reality check against what may sometimes be deemed to be excessive rule strictness and virtual modeling on the part of the Baṣrans.
Carter, Sībawayhi’s principles 5–6↩︎
Baalbaki, Introduction to The early Islamic grammatical tradition xv; من تاريخ النحو العربي لسعيد الأفعاني 29–30, footnote 2↩︎
Baalbaki, Introduction to The early Islamic grammatical tradition xiii↩︎
Adapted from Andreas Hallberg’s blog post [andreasmhallberg.github.io/timeline-of-arab-grammarians], and Ovamir Anjum’s presentation at the Muslim Community Association, Santa Clara, Calif., 2013 [youtu.be/cZ6RoRMF-kI].↩︎
from Suleiman, The Arabic grammatical tradition: A study in ta‘līl 16↩︎
Suleiman, The Arabic grammatical tradition: A study in ta‘līl 18–19, القياس النحوي لخالد حسين أبو عمشة 7↩︎
Suleiman, The Arabic grammatical tradition: A study in ta‘līl 19↩︎
Suleiman, The Arabic grammatical tradition: A study in ta‘līl 16, القياس النحوي لخالد حسين أبو عمشة 7–8↩︎
Suleiman, The Arabic grammatical tradition: A study in ta‘līl 16–17, القياس النحوي لخالد حسين أبو عمشة 7–8↩︎
Suleiman, The Arabic grammatical tradition: A study in ta‘līl 22-24↩︎
القياس في اللغة العربية لمحمد الخضر حسين 36–37↩︎
Suleiman, The Arabic grammatical tradition: A study in ta‘līl 16↩︎
Here is an example:
… ولم يذكره [سيبويه] إلا في نفس عبارته قال «وذلك عجبت من ضرب زيد عمرًا»، وليس في لفظه ما يدل على أنه محكي عن العرب، فيحتمل أن يكون ذلك رأيًا منه، بل هو ظاهر كلامه وقياس منه
[التذييل والتكميل لأبي حيان 11/75]↩︎القياس النحوي لخالد حسين أبو عمشة 4–5↩︎
القياس في اللغة العربية لمحمد الخضر حسين 40↩︎
القياس في اللغة العربية لمحمد الخضر حسين 42↩︎
Baalbaki, “Teaching Arabic at university level” 86↩︎
الانتصار لسيبويه على المبرد لابن ولاد 204 cited by Baalbaki, “The book in the grammatical tradition” 130↩︎
Levin, “The theory of al-taqdīr and its terminology.” 142–143↩︎
Baalbaki, “Bāb al-fāʾ” 186–189↩︎
Baalbaki, “Bāb al-fāʾ” 190; Versteegh, “The notion of underlying levels” 278↩︎
الضمير المستتر لسعود بن عبيد الله الصاعدي, تمهيد ز–ط↩︎
القياس في اللغة العربية لمحمد الخضر حسين 42↩︎
القياس في اللغة العربية لمحمد الخضر حسين 42
Here is another example of using virtual modeling with anomalous usage:
ولا يتقدم نعت المصدر على معموله فلا يقال عرفت سوقك العنيف الإبل، لأن معمول المصدر منه بمنزلة الصلة من الموصول، فلا يتقدم نعت المصدر على معموله، كما لا يتقدم نعت الموصول على صلته، فإن ورد ما يوهم خلاف ذلك قدر فعل بعد النعت يتعلق به المعمول المتأخر. فمن ذلك قول الحطيئة:
أزمَعْتُ يأسًا مُبِينا من نَوالكم ~ ولنْ ترى طارِدًا للحُرِّ كاليأسِ
فالمتبادر إلى فهم سامع هذا البيت تعليق من نوالكم بيأسا، وهو غير جائز كما ذكرت، بل يتعلق بيئست مضمرا
[شرح التسهيل لابن مالك 3/108–109]↩︎Baalbaki, “Bāb al-fāʾ” 188↩︎
Baalbaki, “Bāb al-fāʾ” 190↩︎
Baalbaki, “Bāb al-fāʾ” 190↩︎
See also Baalbaki, “Bāb al-fāʾ” 188↩︎
See Baalbaki, Introduction to The early Islamic grammatical tradition, §“The Basran/Kufan divide”, pp. xxxix–xlii↩︎
القياس في اللغة العربية لمحمد الخضر حسين 41–42↩︎