›‹

٣

هٰذَا بَاْبُ الْمُسْنَدِ وَالْمُسْنَدِ إِلَيْهِ

Commentary

Note that Sībawayhi does not say that a musnad (الْمُسْنَد the linked term) and a musnad-ilayhi (الْمُسْنَد إِلَيْهِ the linked-to term) are necessary components of all \textit{kalām}. He only says that when one does in fact occur, the other must also be present. Later in the text he will give many examples of meaningful speech that does not include either. An obvious example: ذَهَبَ ðahaba, “He went” is a complete utterance. He also gives examples of single nouns that suffice for speech, e.g. الْقِرْطَاْسَ al-qirṭāsᵃ (the target), which one might say when seeing an archer's arrow hit a target, meaning “You/it hit the target!” (Article 57).

Note also that in the examples he gives, he does not explicitly say which term is the musnad and which the musnad-ilayhi. However, the parallel structure of the text seems clear enough. He starts by mentioning الْمُسْنَد first, then الْمُسْنَد إِلَيْهِ. He then gives three examples, each of two terms (عَبْدُ اللهِ ʕabdᵘ_llahᵢ counts as a single term). The first two examples begin with an اسْمٌ مُبْتَدَأٌ (initiated term), and the third begins with a verb. He then comments that in each case the first term must be followed by the second (لا بُدَّ لَهُ, “there is no avoiding for it”). The most plausible interpretation is that the first term is الْمُسْنَد and the second is الْمُسْنَد إِلَيْهِ.

Furthermore, he says explicitly in Article 17: فَالْمُبْتَدَأُ مُسْنَدٌ وَالْمَبْنِيُّ عَلَيْهِ مَسْنَدٌ إِلَيْهِ “for the initiated is musnad and what is constructed upon it is musnad-ilayhi”. And article 132: فَالْمُبْتَدأُ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْمُبْنِيُّ مَا بَعْدَهُ عَلَيْهِ فَهُوَ مُسْنَدٌ وَمُسْنَدٌ إِلَيْهِ “for the initiated is first and what is constructed is what is after and upon it, so this is musnad and musnad-ilayhi”.

But then why does he say that each must be accompanied by the other? Why not just say that الْمُسْنَد must be followed by الْمُسْنَد إِلَيْهِ and leave it at that? One possible explanation for this is the need to accomodate the flexibility of word order in Arabic, which as he observes in multiple places supports التَّقْدِيْمُ (_l-taqdīm, forepositioning) and التَّأْخِيْرُ (_l-taɁxīr, backpositioning). For example (Article 24), one can say ضَرَبْتُ زَيْدًا (linked followed by linked-to), but one can also say زَيْدًا ضَرَبْتُ or زَيْدًا ضَرَبْتُهُ, in which case the first term is not اسْمٌ مُبْتَدَأٌ (initiated term). Sībawayhi does not mention either musnad or musnad-ilayhi in his explanations of these forms, but if we treat زَيْدًا as a musnad-ilayhi, then by the rule stated in this article, it must be followed by a musnad. In other words, forepositioning and backpositioning apply not just to words but to musnad and musnad-ilayhi as well.

Note that on this interpretation, what is required is not merely that each requires the other, but that either must be followed by the other. Speech is always constructed sequentially, so for Sībawayhi it would make little sense to say that some term requires a preceding term. You cannot retroactively require something. For example, had he stated the rule as “musnad requires musnad-ilayhi” then زَيْدًا ضَرَبْتُهُ would have to be interpreted as the second term requiring the first term, which would violate one of his most fundamental principles, namely that speech is constructed going forward, so to speak. It would make no sense to say that “there is no avoiding for the speaker” who says ضَرَبْتُهُ, that he must say something previous to that utterance. Once the speaker says ضَرَبْتُهُ it's too late to be compelled to say something prior to that.

Dicta

1. عَبْدُ اللّٰهِ أَخُوْكَ
   ʕabdᵘ ـll²āhᵢʕAbdᵘ llahᵢ

   ⌈Ɂᵃxᵘẘ-kᵃ⌉⌊thebrotherᵘ-of-you⌋
   «Abdullah is your brother»
2. هٰذَا أَخُوْكَ
   hāðāthis

   ⌈Ɂᵃxᵘẘ-kᵃ⌉⌊thebrotherᵘ-of-you⌋
   «This is your brother»
3. يَذْهَبُ عَبْدُ اللهِ
   yaðhabᵘhe goes

   ʕabdᵘ ـll²āhᵢʕAbdᵘ llahᵢ
   «Abdullah goes/will go»
4. كَاْنَ عَبْدُ اللهِ مُنْطَلِقًا
   kānawas

   ʕabdᵘ ـll²āhᵢʕAbdᵘ llahᵢ

   munṭaliqᵃⁿdepartingᵃⁿ
   «Abdullah was departing»
   «It was Abdullah departing»
5. لَيْتَ زَيْدًا مُنْطَلِقٌ
   laytawould that

   zaydᵃⁿZaydᵃⁿ

   munṭaliqᵘⁿdepartingᵘⁿ
   «Would that Zady were departing!»
6. عَبْدُ اللهِ مُنْطَلِقٌ
   ʕabdᵘ ـll²āhᵢʕAbdᵘ llahᵢ

   munṭaliqᵘⁿdepartingᵘⁿ
   «Abdullah is departing»
7. رَأَيْتُ عَبْدَ اللهِ مُنْطَلِقًا
   raɁaẙ-tusaw-I

   ʕabdᵃ ـll²āhᵢ⌊ʕAbdᵃ llahᵢ⌋

   munṭaliqᵃⁿdepartingᵃⁿ
   «I saw Abdallah departing»
   «I regarded Abdallah as departing»
8. كَاْنَ عَبْدُ اللهِ مُنْطَلِقًا
   kānawas

   ʕabdᵘ ـll²āhᵢʕAbdᵘ llahᵢ

   munṭaliqᵃⁿdepartingᵃⁿ
   «Abdullah was departing»
   «It was Abdullah that was departing»
9. مَرَرْتُ بِعَبْدِ اللهِ مُنْطَلِقًا
   marar-tupassed-I

   bi-ʕabdᵢ ـll²āhᵢʕAbdᵢ llahᵢ

   munṭaliqᵃⁿdepartingᵃⁿ
   «I passed by Abdullah departing»
   «I passed by Abdullah as he was departing»