Sign in Subscribe

›‹
٤١
هٰذَا بَاْبُ الصِّفَةِ الْمُشَبَّهَةِ بِالْفَاْعِلِ
فِيْمَا عَمِلَتْ فِيْهِ

هٰذَا بَاْبُ الصِّفَةِ الْمُشَبَّهَةِ بِالْفَاْعِلِ 1٨٩٥٩١ this is the topic of the descriptor assimilated to the enactant
فِيْمَا عَمِلَتْ فِيْهِ 2٠٩٠٠٤ in what it
the صِفة
 elaborates in
وَلَمْ تَقْوَ أَنْ تَعْمَلَ عَمَلَ الْفَاْعِلِ 3٢١٤٨٥ and it it does not have the power to elaborate the elaboration of the enactant
لِأَنَّهَا لَيْسَتْ فِي مَعْنَى الْفِعْلِ الْمُضَاْرِعِ 4٠٢٦٤٠ since it is not in the meaning of the co-homologous action
i.e. the imperfect verb, which is mutually homologous with the (nominal of the) enactant.
فَإِنَّمَا شُبِّهَتْ بِالْفَاْعِلِ فِيْمَا عَمِلَتْ فِيْهِ 5٩٣٩١٤ yet indeed it is assimilated to the enactant in what it elaborates in
وَمَا تَعْمَلُ فِيْهِ مَعْلُوْمٌ 6٥٩٥٧٠ and what it elaborates in is something known
معلوم “(is)learned, (becomes) known”, in contrast with مَعْرِفَة, meaning not “definite” but “recognized” due to an antecedent mention.
إِنَّمَا تَعْمَلُ فِيْمَا كَاْنَ مِنْ سَبَبِهَا 7٥١٠٦٥ yet it elaborates in what is of its correlate
In سَبَبِهَا the antecedent of the suffixed pronoun ـها is الصِّفَة, the descriptor mentioned in the first line. But every صفة is an اسم, so ما كان مِن سَبَبِها refers to anything “correlated” to the thing described by the descriptor. It does not refer to something “grammatically linked” to the adjective itself. In other words سَبَب is a fundamentally semantic concept.
مُعَرَّفًا بِالْأَلِفِ وَاللَّامِ أَوْ نَكِرَةً 8٤٢٨٩٦ [whether it be] made recognized by the alif and the lâm or it be unrecognized
لَا تُجَاوِزُ هٰذَا 9٠٠٦١٨ it does not surpass this
لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ بِفِعْلٍ وَلَا اسْمٍ هُوَ فِي مَعْنَاْهُ 10٠٤٧٦٤ since it is not an action, nor is it a nominal which is in its meaning
في معناه meaning في معنى الفِعْل i.e. it is not a noun having the sense of a verb, such as a participle like ضارِب
الإضافة فِي الصِّفة المُشَبَّهَة
وَالْإِضَاْفَةُ فِيْهِ أَحَْسَنُ وَأَكْثَرُ 11٩٦٦٠٢ and association
Read this as associating, with verbal force. Sībawayhi is not referring to a static “construct”.
 in it is more felicitous and copious
لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ كَمَا جَرَى مَجْرَى الْفِعْلِ وَلَا فِي مَعْنَاْهُ 12٣٥٨٤٨ since it is not like what follows the course of the action nor is it in its meaning
I.e. the اسم الفاعل, participle, which “acts like” the verb and has verbal semantics. His point being that terms like حَسَنٌ are similar to participles like ضاربٌ with respect to elaboration (فيما عَمِلَت فِيهِ), but dissimilar with respect to grammar and meaning.
فَكَانَ أَحْسَنَ عِنْدَهُمْ أَنْ يَتَبَاْعَدَ مِنْهُ فِي اللَّفْظِ 13٧٩٦٧٨ so it is more felicitous among them that it be remote from it
i.e. the action (“verb”)
 in pronunciation
كَمَا أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِثْلَهُ فِي الْمَعْنَى وَفِي قُوَّتِهِ فِي الْأَشْيَاْءِ 14٣٥٩٤٢ just as it is not like it in meaning and in its power in things
وَالتَّنْوِيْنُ عَرَبِىٌّ جَيِّدٌ 15٨٧٩٤٢ and tanwīn is excellent Arabic
وَمَعَ هٰذَا أَنَّهُمْ لَوْ تَرَكُوا التَّنْوِينَ أَوِ النُّوْنَ 16٩٣٥٢٢ and with this
I.e. "nonetheless"
 if they were to omit the tanwīn or the nūn,
لَمْ يَكُنْ أَبَدًا إِلَّا نَكِرَةً عَلَى حَاْلِهِ مُنَوَّنًا 17٠٥٧٣٠ it would never be other than something unrecognized, being on its circumstance [when] nūnated
فَلَمَّا كَانَ تَرْكُ التَّنْوِيْنِ فِيْهِ وَالْنُّوْنُ 18٩٣٤٦٥ for when omission of the tanwīn and the nūn is in it
لَا يُجَاوَزُ بِهِ مَعْنَى النُّوْنِ وَالتَّنْوْيِنِ 19٣٥٢٤٥ the meaning of the nūn and the tanwīn is not surpassed by it
i.e. the meaning is not changed by omission of the nūn and the tanwīn
كَانَ تَرْكُهُمَا أَخَفَّ عَلَيْهِمْ 20٤٦٠٤٨ their omission
lit. "the omission of the two of them"
 is lighter on them
فَهٰذَا يُقَوِّي أَنَّ الْإِضَاْفَةَ أَحْسَنُ مَعَ التَّفْسِيْرِ الْأَوَّلِ 21٧٤٣٣٦ so this (with the antecedent explanation) strengthens that association is more felicitous
فَالْمُضَاْفُ قَوْلُكَ هٰذَا حَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ 22٧٢٩٣١ well what is associated is your saying hāðă ḥasanᵘ ـl-wajhᵢ
«This[masc] is (someone) beautiful of face»
وَهٰذِهِ حَسَنَةُ الْوَجْهِ 23٢٧٧٠٦ and hāðihi ḥasanatᵘ ـl-wajhᵢ
«This[fem] is (someone) beautiful of face»
فَالصِّفَةُ تَقَعُ عَلَى الِاسْمِ الْأَوَّلِ 24٧٧٠٩٧ so the descriptor
حسن in the first example, حسنة in the second
 falls on the antecedent nominal
Here الأوَّل means “prior”, not “first”. The antecedent nominal is هٰذا in the first example, هٰذه in the second
ثُمَّ تُوْصِلُهَا إِلَى الْوَجْهِ 25٩١٣٢٨ then you connect it to ـl-wajhᵢ
the face [gen]
وَإِلَى كُلِّ شَيءٍ مِنْ سَبَبِهِ 26٤٩٣٧١ and to every thing of its correlate
"Its correlate" meaning correlate of the antecedent noun (هٰذا or هٰذه) The antecedent of the (anaphoric) pronoun ـه in سببِهِ is الاسمِ الأوَّلِ (which is هٰذا or هٰذه), not الْوَجْهِ. The idea is that the صِفَة "connects" (applies) to anything anaphorically correlated to the antecedent nominal, of which الْوجه is just one possibility.
عَلَى مَا ذَكَرْتُ لَكَ 27٨١٩٥٧ according to what I mentioned to you
كَمَا تَقُوْلُ هٰذَا ضَاْرِبُ الرَّجُلِ 28١٧٩٧٣ as you say hāðă ḍāribᵘ ـr-rajulᵢ
«This[m] is someone striking the man[gen]»
«This[m] strikes the man[gen]»
«This[m] [one is a] striker [of] the man»
وَهٰذِهِ ضَاْرِبَةُ الرَّجُلِ 29٩٨٢٥٤ and hāðihi ḍᵃårᵢbᵃtᵘ ـr-rajulᵢ
«This[f.] is (someone[fem]) striking the man»
«This[f.] [one is a] striker [of] the man»
إِلَّا أَنَّ الْحُسْنَ فِي الْمَعْنَى لِلْوَجْهِ 30٥٨٣٤٧ except that the beauty, in meaning, is for the face
وَالضَّرْبُ هٰهُنَا لِلْأَوَّلِ 31٢١٥٢٧ and the striking here is for the antecedent
وَمِنْ ذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُمْ 32٨٩١٨٥ and from that is their saying
هُوَ أَحْمَرُ بَيْنَ الْعَيْنَيْنِ 33٣٣٧٢٤ huwa Ɂaḥmarᵘ bayna _l-ʕaynayni
«He is red between the eyes»
«He is red of what is between the eyes»
وَهُوَ جَيِّدُ وَجْهِ الدَّاْرِ 34٨٧٤٢٥ and huwa jayyidᵘ wajhᵢ ـd-dārᵢ
«He is the most excellent chief of the tribe(?)»
«It is the most excellent face(?) of the district/town?»
«It is the best time of the year(?)»
وَمِمَّا جَاْءَ مُنَوَّنًا قَوْلُ زُهَيْرٍ 35١٣٣١١ and among what comes nūnated is the saying of Zuhayrᵢₙ
36٠٩٣٥٧
وَقَاْلَ الْعَجَّاْجُ 37٨٥٦٤٦ and _l-ʕaj²ājᵘ said
38٣٦٩٢٥
وَقَالَ أَيْضًا النَّابِغَةُ 39٣٠٣٧٢ and _N²ābigatᵘ also said
40٠٥٥٢٧
وَهُوَ فِي الشِّعْرِ كَثِيْرٌ 41٨٧٦٨٢ and in poetry it is copious
وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ كَيْنُوْنَةَ الْأَلِفِ وَاللَّامِ فِي الِاسْمِ الْآخِرِ 42٧٦١٢٧ and know that the existence of the alif and the lâm in the latter nominal
I.e. the مُضاف إليه, the second (“latter”) term of the Ɂiḍāfah.
أَكْثَرُ وَأَحْسَنُ مِنْ أَنْ لَا تَكُوْنَ فِيْهِ الْأَلِفُ وَاللَّامُ 43٥٧٩٢٦ is more copious and more felicitous than that the alif and the lâm not be in it
لِأَنَّ الْأَوَّلَ فِي الْأَلِفِ وَاللَّامِ وَفِي غَيْرِهِمَا 44٤٧٨٦٥ since the antecedent in the alif and the lâm and in other-than-them
i.e. with or without the alif-lām on the latter nominal.
هٰهُنَا عَلَى حَاْلَةٍ وَاْحِدَةٍ 45٦٤٤٤٣ here is on a single state
I.e. the “status” of assimilated nominals like حَسَن, when “in construct”, is unaffected by the presence or absence of the alif-lām on the second term of the Ɂiḍāfah.
وَلَيْسَ كَالْفَاعِلِ 46٨٤٨٥٦ and it is not like the enactant
فَكَانَ إِدْخَالُهُمَا أَحْسَنَ وَأَكْثَرَ 47٤٧٣٨٠ so the introduction of both of them is more felicitous and more copious
كَمَا كَانَ تَرْكُ التَّنْوِيْنِ أَكْثَرَ 48٦٧٧٣٧ as the omission of the tanwīn is more copious
وَكَانَ الْأَلِفُ وَاللَّامُ أَوْلَى 49٩٨٤٩٧ and the alif and the lâm is more primitive
Or: has priority. NB: Sībawayhi treats “alif and lām” as a compound singular.
لِأَنَّ مَعْنَاهُ حَسَنٌ وَجْهُهُ 50٦٠٠٨٦ since its meaning
The meaning of حَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ.
 is ḥasanᵘⁿ wajhᵘ-hu
something beautiful, the face of him
فَكَمَا لَا يَكُوْنُ هٰذَا إِلَّا مَعْرِفَةً 51٣٣٧٤٤ so as this
Here use of an assimilated descriptor with tanwīn (حَسَنٌ) plus a complement (وَجْهُهُ) requires that the latter be معرفة. Here, wajhᵘ-hu is معرفة because it is an Ɂiḍāfah whose second term ـه is معرفة.
is not except something recognized
اِخْتَارُوْا فِي ذٰلِكَ الْمَعْرِفَةَ 52٩٣٧٠٦ they choose in that
When using an assimilated descriptor without tanwīn, they prefer a definite complement, as in (حَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ). By implication, حَسَنُ وَجْهٍ would be dispreferred (but not forbidden, as demonstrated in what follows).
what is recognized
وَالْأُخْرَى عَرَبِيَّةٌ 53٧٠١٣٧ and the other
I.e. use of an assimilated descriptor without tanwīn, without using alif-lām in the complement (e.g. حديثُ عَهْدٍ).
 is Arabic
كَمَا أَنَّ التَّنْوِينَ وَالنُّوْنَ عَرَبِىٌّ مُطَّرِدٌ 54٦٩٤٧٤ as that the tanwīn and the nūn are regular Arabic
فَمِنْ ذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُ هُوَ حَدِيْثُ عَهْدٍ بِالْوَجَعِ 55٤٦٥١٣ so of that is your saying huwa ḥadīθᵘ ʕahdᵢₙ bi-_l-wajaɁᵢ
«He is recent of pain»
«He is recent of time with pain»
وَقَاْلَ عَمْرُو بْنُ شَأْسٍ 56٠٩٥٦٤ and ʕamrᵘw bnᵘ šaɁsᵢₙ said
57٧٩٥٤٩
وَقَالَ حُمَيْدٌ الْأَرْقَطُ 58٥٤٦٩٠ and Ḥumaydᵘⁿ _l-Ɂarqaṭᵘ said
59٢٧٥١٤
وَمِمَّا جَاءَ مُنَوَّنًا قَوْلُ أَبِي زُبَيْدٍ يَصِفُ الْأَسَدَ 60٩١٢١٢ and among what comes nūnated is the saying of ɁAbī Zubaydᵢₙ describing the lion
61١١١٧٤
وَقَالَ أَيْضًا 62٥٠٥٢٠ and he also said
63٣٥٠٧٣
وَقَالَ عَدِيُّ بْنُ زَيْدٍ 64٣٣٥٩٦ and ʕAdiyyᵘ bnᵘ Zaydᵢₙ said
65٩٣٣٣٢
وَقَدْ جَاْءَ فِي الشِّعْرِ حَسَنَةُ وَجْهِهَا 66٤١١٥٥ and in poetry has come ḥasanatᵘ wajhᵢhā
beautiful[fem] of her face
شَبَّهُوْهُ بِـحَسَنَةِ الْوَجْهِ 67٨٥٦٦٣ they assimilate it to ḥasanatᵢ _l-wajhᵢ
beautiful[fem] of the face
وَذٰلِكَ رَدِيْءٌ 68٤٨٧٨٣ and that is vile
This is clearly an aesthetic judgment: حَسَنَةُ وَجْهِهَا and حَسَنَةُ الْوَجْهِ mean the same thing, but he has just explained that use of the alif-lām is أَوْلَى, prior or more appropriate, and “they choose it”; hence حَسَنَةُ وَجْهِهَا is (aesthetically) “vile” (weak, disapproved, etc.)
لِأَنَّهُ بِالْهَاءِ مَعْرِفَةٌ 69٨٧٦٥٦ since it is recognized with the hāˀ
كَمَا كَانَ بِالْأَلِفِ وَاللَّامِ 70٠٠١٦٠ as it is with the alif and the lâm
وَهُوَ مِنْ سَبَبِ الْأَوَّلِ 71٢٧١١٦ and it is of the correlate of the first
كَمَا أَنَّهُ مِن سَبَبِهِ بِالْأَلِفِ وَاللَّامِ 72٦٧٠٢١ as it is of its correlate with the alif and the lâm
قَالَ الشَّمَّاْخُ 73٤٩٩٥١ and _Š²am²āxᵘ said
74٥٦٥٣٤
دُخُولُ الأَلِفِ وَالَّامِ فِي الْمُضَاْفِ
وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ فِي الْعَرَبِيَّةِ 75٢٦٤١٨ and know that there is not in Arabic
مُضَاْفٌ يَدْخُلُ عَلَيْهِ الْأَلِفُ وَاللَّامُ 76٣٤٥٨٨ an associated term, upon which the alif and the lâm enter
غَيْرُ الْمُضَاْفِ إِلَى الْمَعْرِفَةِ فِي هٰذَا الْبَاْبِ 77٧٠٧٩٩ other than what is associated to what is recognized, in this topic
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُكَ هٰذَا الْحَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ 78٨٤٧٥٤ and that is your saying hāðă _l-ḥasanᵘ ـl-wajhᵢ
«This [is] the beautiful [one], of face»
أَدْخَلُوْا الْأَلِفَ وَاللَّامَ عَلَى حَسَنِ الْوَجْهِ 79٩٠٩٨٤ they introduce the alif and the lâm on ḥasanᵢ -l wajhᵢ
someone beautiful of the-face
لِأَنَّهُ مُضَاْفٌ إِلَى مَعْرِفَةٍ 80٧٣٤٦٨ since it is associated to a recognized term
لَا يُكُوْنُ بِهَا مَعْرِفَةً أَبَدًا 81٧٢٠١٠ not ever becoming recognized by it
حَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ is indefinite, in contrast to e.g. حِمارُ الرَّجُلِ which is معرفة because the first term is associated to a definite second term.
فَاحْتَاْجَ إِلَى ذٰلِكَ حَيْثُ مُنِعَ مَا يَكُوْنُ فِي مِثْلِهِ الْبَتَّةَ 82٦١٧٦٥ so it needs that, where what is in its like is absolutely precluded
Here he seems to be referring to Ɂiḍāfahs where the head term is a substantive noun, where a definite second term makes the Ɂiḍāfah itself definite. For example حِمارُ الرَّجُلِ, “the donkey of the man”. An alif-lām may never be prefixed to the first term of such an Ɂiḍāfah.
وَلَا يُجَاوَزُ بِهِ مَعْنَى التَّنْوِيْنِ 83٩٠٤٠٢ and the meaning of tanwīn is not surpassed by it
Paradoxically, the introduction of ال makes الْحَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ definite, but حَسَنُ retains “the meaning of tanwīn”. So حَسَنُ remains indefinite, suggesting that الْحَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ means something like الَّذِي هو حَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ, which in turn is equivalent to الَّذي هو حَسَنٌ وَجْهُهُ. Furthermore, “the meaning of tanwīn” seems to include verbal aspect: dropping the tanwīn of the quasi-participle does not affect aspect, since as noted above it is neither a verb nor a participle having the meaning of a verb. The participle, however, being like a verb, expresses aspect/tense, and dropping the tanwīn may express perfective vs. imperfective meaning, as explained in Ch. 37.
فَأَمَّا النَّكِرَةُ فَلَا يَكُوْنُ فِيْهَا إِلَّا الْحَسَنُ وَجْهًا 84٠٥٩٠٥ now as for the unrecognized, well there is not in it anything but _l-ḥasanᵘ wajhᵃⁿ
the beautiful in the-face (face-wise)
تَكُوْنُ الْأَلِفُ وَاللَّامُ بَدَلًا مِنَ التَّنْوِيْنِ 85٢٥٠٦٩ the alif and the lâm are a substitute from the tanwīn
Contrast الْحَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ, where the alif-lām is not substituted for the tanwīn, since الْوَجْهِ is الْمُضاف إليه “associated-to”, hence مَجْرُوْر (retracted, “genitive”), and a fundamental principle is that such terms “enter” the head of the Ɂiḍāfah as “compensation” for the tanwīn. So Ch. 37: وَدَخَلَ فِي الِاسْمِ مُعَاْقِبًا لِلَتَّنْوِيْنِ “it enters in the nominal as compensation for the tanwīn” and Ch. 50: وَذٰلِكَ أَنَّ الْمَجْرُوْرَ دَاْخِلٌ فِي الْجَاْرِّ غَيْرُ مُنْفَصِلٍ فَصَاْرَ كَأَنَّهُ شَيْءٌ مِنَ الِٱسْمِ لِأَنَّهُ مُعَاْقِبُ لِلتَّنْوِيْنِ, “and that is that the retracted [term] enters in the retracting [term], not separated, so it becomes as if it is something of the noun since it is compensation for the tanwīn.” See also Ch. 2, 39.
لِأَنَّكَ لَوْ قُلْتَ حَدِيْثُ عَهْدٍ أَوْ كَرِيْمُ أَبٍ 86٥٨٥٧٥ since if you say ḥadīθᵘ ʕahdᵢₙ
recent of time
 or karīmᵘ ˀabᵢₙ
noble of father
لَمْ تُخْلِلْ بِالْأَوَّلِ فِي شَيءٍ 87٢٦٨٥١ you do not apopcopate anything in the first
فَتُحْتَمَلَ لَهُ الْأَلِفُ وَاللَّامُ 88٦٩٥٥٢ such that the alif and the lâm be supported for it
The tanwīn of حَدِيْثٌ is apocopated in حَدِيْثُ عَهْدٍ, but since the المضاف إليه, i.e. عَهْدٍ, (already) functions as بَدَل "substitute" for the apocopated tanwīn, the ال cannot (also) be supported on حديث.
لِأَنَّهُ عَلَى مَا يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَكُوْنَ عَلَيْهِ 89٢١٢٨٠ since it is as it should be
قَالَ رُؤْبَةُ 90٨٩٦٢٤ RuɁbatᵘ said
91٥٢٢١٧
وَزَعَمَ أَبُوْ الْخَطَّاْبِ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ قَوْمًا مِنْ الْعَرَبِ يُنْشِدُوْنَ هٰذَا الْبَيْتَ لِــلْحَارِثِ ابْنِ ظَالِمٍ 92٨٩١٧١ and Abū _l-Xaṭṭâbᵢ claimed that he heard people among the Arabs proclaim this verse of al-Ḥāriθᵢ _bnᵢ Ẓālimᵢₙ
93٧٣٨٧٣
فَإِنَّمَا أُدْخِلَتْ الْأَلِفُ وَاللَّامُ فِي الْـحَسَنِ 94١٤٣٩٥ so rather the alif and the lâm are introduced in ḥasanᵢ
beautiful
ثُمَّ أَعْمَلْتَهُ 95٥٠٦٨٣ then you make it elaborate
I.e. you make الْحَسَن function grammatically (just like a participle functions to elaborate its complement) after you introduce the alif-lām.
كَمَا قَاْلَ الضَّاْرِبُ زَيْدًا 96٨٦١٧٤ as one says _ḍ-ḍāribᵘ zaydᵃⁿ
«the one striking Zayd»
وَعَلَىَ هٰذَا الْوَجْهِ تَقُوْلُ هُوَ الْحَسَنُ الْوَجْهَ 97٦٧٨٠٥ and along this way you say huwa _l-ḥasanᵘ ـl-wajhᵃ
«He is the beautiful [one] [in] the face[acc]»
«He is the beautiful [one] face-wise»
وَهِىَ عَرَبِيَّةٌ جَيِّدَةٌ 98٥١٢٦٠ and it is excellent Arabic
قَاْلَ الشَّاْعِرُ 99٣٩١٥٥ the poet said
100٣٣٤٢٢
وَقَدْ يَجُوْزُ فِي هٰذَا 101٩٠٨٨٥ and what passes in this
أَنْ تَقُوْلَ هُوَ الْحَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ 102٣٦٩٦٦ is that you say huwa _l-ḥasanᵘ ـl-wajhᵢ
«He is the one who is beautiful[nom] of face[gen]»
عَلَى قَوْلِهِ هُوَ الضَّاِْبُ الرَّجُلِ 103٥٣٣٦٩ on his saying huwa _ḍ-ḍāribᵘ ـr-rajulᵢ
«He [is] the one who struck[nom] the man[gen]»
فَالْجَّرُ فِي هٰذَا الْبَاْبِ مِنْ وَجْهَيْنِ 104٣٤٧٧٨ for retraction in this topic is from two ways
مِنَ البَاْبِ الَّذِي هُوَ لَهُ وَهُوَ الْإِضَاْفَةُ 105١٥٠٥٦ from the topic which is (proper) to it, that being association
وَمِنْ إِعْمَاْلِ الْفِعْلِ ثُمَّ يُسْتَخَفُّ فَيُضَاْفُ 106٢٣٩٨٠ and from making the action elaborate, then lightening, then it is associated
فَإِذَا ثَنَّيْتَ أَوْ جَمَعْتَ فَأَثْبَتَّ النُّوْنَ فَلَيْسَ إِلَّا النَّصْبُ 107٠٤٥٠٣ now if you double or pluralize so you fix the nūn then there is only raising
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُمْ 108٠١٧٦٩ and that is their saying
هُمُ الطَّيِّبُوْنَ الْأَخْبَاْرَ 109١١٩٣٣ humu ـṭ-ṭayyibᵘẘna _l-Ɂaxbārᵃ
«They are the ones who are pleasant [in] tidings[.acc]»
وَهُمَا الْحَسَنَاْنِ الْوُجُوْهَ 110٢٧٢٨٠ and humā _l-ḥasanāni _l-wujūhᵃ
«They[2] are the two who are beautiful[2] [in] face[pl.acc].»
وَمِنْ ذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُ تَعَاْلَى 111٦٠٣٤٦ and from that is His saying (Sublime be he)
قُلْ هَلْ نُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِٱلْأَخْسَرِيْنَ أَعْمَاْلًا 112٣٣٥٤٥ Say: Shall We inform you who will be the greatest losers by their works?
وَقَاْلَتْ خِرْنِقُ مِنْ بَنِي قَيْسٍ 113٤٠٧١٧ and Xirniqᵘ of Banī Qaysᵢₙ said
114١٦٧٠٠
فَإِنْ كَفَفْتَ النُّوْنَ جَرَرْتَ 115٩٠٠٣٠ well if withhold the nūn you retract,
كَاْنَ الْمَعْمُوْلُ فِيْهِ نَكِرَةً أَوْ فِيْهِ أَلِفٌ وَلَامٌ 116١٣٢٧٧ [whether] what is elaborated in it be unrecognized or in it be the alif and the lâm
كَمَا قُلْتَ هٰؤُلَاءِ الضَّاْرِبُو زَيْدٍ 117٩٥٨١٤ as you say hāɁulāɁi _ḍ-ḍāribᵘẘ zaydᵢₙ
«Those are the ones who struck Zayd[.gen]»
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُمْ هُمُ الطَّيِّبُو أَخْبَاْرٍ 118١٢٢٩٨ humu ـṭ-ṭayyibᵘẘ Ɂaxbārᵢₙ
«They are the ones who are pleasant[m.pl] of tidings[.gen]»
وَإِنْ شِئْتَ نَصَبْتَ عَلَى قَوْلِهِ 119٣٢٩٥١ and if you will, you raise on his saying
120٣٠٦٤٨
الْفَصْلُ وَإثْباتُ التَّنْوِيْنِ
وَتَقُوْلُ فِيْمَا لَا يَقَعُ إِلَّا مُنَوَّنًا عَامِلًا فِي نَكِرَةٍ 121٩٢٦٥٦ and you say in what only occurs nūnated, elaborating in something unrecognized
وَإِنَّمَا وَقَعَ مُنَوَّنًا لِأَنَّهُ فُصِلَ فِيْهِ 122٠٠٩٧٦ and yet it occurs nūnated since there is separation
He is referring to comparatives, which require a “splitter” (separator), e.g. مِنْكَ “than you”, مِنْهُ “than him”, etc.
 in it
بَيْنَ الْعَامِلِ وَالْمَعْمُوْلِ 123٣٥١٤٨ between what elaborates and what is elaborated
فَالْفَصْلُ لَازِمٌ لَهُ أَبَدًا مُظْهَرًا أَوْ مُضْمَرًا 124٦٣٢٢٧ for separation is obligatory for it always, explicitly or implicitly
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُكَ هُوَ خَيْرٌ مِنْكَ أَبًا 125٣٧٢٩٥ and that is your saying huwa xayrᵘⁿ min-ka Ɂabᵃⁿ
«He is better[nom] than-you in respect to a father[acc]»
«His father is better than yours(?)»
وَهُوَ أَحْسَنُ مِنْكَ وَجْهًا 126٣٧٧٥٤ and huwa Ɂaḥsanᵘ min-ka wajhᵃⁿ
«He is more-beautiful than-you in face[acc.indef]»
«His face is more beautiful than yours»
وَلَا يَكُوْنُ الْمَعْمُوْلُ فِيْهِ إِلَّا مِنْ سَبَبِهِ 127٤٥٢٤٨ and what is elaborated in it
In the first preceding example, أَبًا is elaborated by خَيْرٌ; in the second, وَجْهًا is elaborated by أَحْسَنُ
 is not but of its correlate
of the correlate of the antecedent nominal; thus in the preceding example وَجْهًا is “of the correlate” of أَحْسَنُ, which is identical to هُوَ, i.e. it is anaphorically linked to the antecedent: not just "a face", but the face of هو
وَإِنْ شِئْتَ قُلْتَ هُوَ خَيْرٌ عَمَلًا 128٩٤٩١٩ and if you will, you say huwa xayrᵘⁿ ʕamalᵃⁿ
«He is better[nom] in work[acc.indef]»
وَأَنْتَ تَنْوِي مِنْكَ 129٧٩٨٢٩ when you intend min-ka
than-you
وَإِنْ شِئْتَ أَخَّرْتَ الْفَصْلَ فِي اللَّفْظِ وَأَصْلُهُ التَّقْدِيْمُ 130٥٧٣٢٥ and if you will, you backposition the separator in pronunciation while its base is forepositioning
I.e. هُوَ أَحْسَنُ مِنْكَ وَجْهًا is “standard”, but هُوَ أَحْسَنُ وَجْهًا مِنْكَ is also acceptable.
لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَمْنَعُهُ تَأْخِيْرُهُ عَمَلَهُ مُقَدَّمًا 131٤٨٦٩٢ since its backpositioning does not preclude its elaboration when forepositioned
كَمَا قَالَ ضَرَبَ زَيْدًا عَمْرٌو 132٣٦٣٨٥ as one says ḍaraba zaydᵃⁿ ʕamrᵘⁿ
«He struck Zayd, did Amr»
«Struck-he, Zayd[.acc], Amr[.nom]»
«Amr struck Zayd»
فَـعَمْرٌو مُؤَخَّرٌ فِي اللَّفْظِ مَبْدُوْءٌ بِهِ فِي الْمَعْنَى 133٩٠٨٣٣ well ʕamrᵘⁿw
Amr
 is backpositioned in pronunciation and begun with in meaning
وَهٰذَا مَبْدُوْءٌ بِهِ 134٩١٨١٦ and this
I.e. the elative, e.g. خَيْرٌ or أَحْسَنُ
 is begun with
فِي أَنَّهُ يُثْبِتُ التَّنْوِيْنَ ثُمَّ يُعْمِلُ 135٦٣٥٧٤ in that it fixes the tanwīn then it makes elaborate
وَلَا يَعْمَلُ إِلَّا فِي نَكِرَةٍ 136٧٨٦٨١ and it does not elaborate except in something unrecognized
كَمَا أَنَّهُ لَا يَكُوْنُ إِلَّا نَكِرَةً 137٣٥٩١٦ like that it is not itself except unrecognized
I.e. the elative itself is نَكِرَة just like the complement in which it elaborates.
وَلَا يَقْوَى قُوَّةَ الصِّفَةِ الْمُشَبَّهَةِ 138٧٦٦٢٥ and it has not the power of the assimilated descriptor
فَأُلْزِمَ فِيْهِ وَفِيْمَا يَعْمَلُ فِيْهِ وَجْهًا وَاْحِدًا 139٥٦٦٧٣ so it is made obligatory
I.e. indefiniteness is mandatory in both the descriptor and its complement
 in it and in what it elaborates in, in a single way
وَيَعْمَلُ فِي الْجَمْعِ كَقَوْلِهِمْ 140٨٠٩٢١ and it elaborates in the aggregate, like their saying
هُوَ خَيْرٌ مِنْكَ أَعْمَاْلًا 141٦٧٣٤٧ huwa xayrᵘⁿ min-ka Ɂaʕmālᵃⁿ
«He is better than you in works»
فَإِنْ أَضَفْتَ فَقُلْتَ هٰذَا أَوَّلُ رَجُلٍ 142٤٤٥٩٦ then if you associate, so you say hāðă Ɂawwalᵘ rajulᵢₙ
«This is more prior of a man»
«This is more preceding of a man»
«This is a pre-eminent man»
اجْتَمَعَ فِيْهِ لُزُوْمُ النَّكِرَةِ 143٤٩٦٤١ then in it are joined the obligatoriness of the unrecognized
وَأَنْ يُلْفَظَ بِوَاْحِدٍ وَهُوَ يُرِيْدُ الْجَمْعَ 144٢٩٦١٤ and that the singular be pronounced while he intends the aggregate
وَذٰلِكَ لِأِنَّهُ أَرَاْدَ أَنْ يَقُوْلَ هٰذا أَوَّلُ الرِّجَاْلِ 145٣٨٥٦٩ and that is because he intended to say hāðă Ɂawwalᵘ _r-rijālᵢ
«[This is] the pre-eminent of the men»
فَحَذَفَ اسْتِخْفَاْفًا وَاخْتِصَاْرًا 146٩٩٩٦٢ then he excised for lightening and abridging
كَمَا قَاْلُوْا كُلُّ رَجُلٍ يُرِيْدُوْنَ كُلُّ الرِّجَاْلِ 147٠١٠٠٦ like they say kullᵘ rajulᵢₙ
every of a man; every man
 desiring kullᵘ _r-rijālᵢ
every of the men; all the men
فَكَمَا اسْتَخَفُّوْا بِحَذْفِ الْأَلِفِ وَاللَّامِ 148٢٦٩٥٠ so as they lighten by excising the alif and the lâm
اسْتَخَفُّوْا بِتَرْكِ بِنَاْءِ الْجَمِيْعِ 149٧١٨٨٧ they lighten by the omitting of the constructing of the aggregated
I.e. the form of the plural
وَاسْتَغْنَوْا عَنْ الْأَلْفِ وَاللَّامِ 150٤٠٠٨٦ and they do without the alif and the lâm
وَعَنْ قَوْلِهِمْ خَيْرُ الرِّجَاْلِ وَأَوَّلُ الرِّجَاْلِ 151٩٢٦٦٤ and (without) their saying ẋayrᵘ _lr-rijālᵢ
the best of the men
 and ˀaw²alᵘ _r-rijālᵢ
the most pre-eminent of the men
وَمِثْلُ ذٰلِكَ فِي تَرْكِ الْأَلِفِ وَاللَّامِ وَبِنَاْءِ الْجَمِيْعِ 152٧٢٥٠٣ and like that, in the omitting of the alif and the lâm and of the constructing of the aggregated
قَوْلُهُمْ عِشْرُوْنَ دِرْهَمًا 153٣٥٥٩٧ is their saying ʕišrūna dirhamᵃⁿ
twenty [in] dirham[.acc]; twenty dirhams
إِنَّمَا أَرَادُوْا عِشْرِيْنَ مِنَ الدَّرَاهِمِ 154١٠٨٦٠ and yet they intended ʕišrīna mina _d-darāhimᵢ
twenty of the dirhams
فَاخْتَصَرُوْا وَاسْتَخَفُّوْا 155٥١٣٢٣ so they abridged and lightened
وَلَمْ يَكُنْ دُخُوْلُ الْأَلِفِ وَاللَّامِ يُغَيِّرُ الْـعِشْرِيْنَ عَنْ نَكِرَتِهِ 156٢٣٠٧١ and inclusion of the alif and the lâm did not change ʕišrīna
twenty
 from its unrecognizedness
فَاسْتَخَفُّوْا بِتَرْكِ مَا لَمْ يُحْتَجْ إِلَيْهِ 157٤٩٩١٠ so they lighten by omitting what is not needed
وَلَمْ تَقْوَ هٰذِهِ الْأَحْرُفُ قُوَّةَ الصِّفَةِ الْمُشَبَّهَةِ 158٠١٩٧٣ and these terms do not have the power of the quasi-participial descriptor
أَلَا تَرَى أَنَّكَ تُؤَنِّثُهَا وَتَذَكِّرُهَا وَتَجْمَعُهَا كَالْفَاعِلِ 159٤٨٥١٨ surely you see that you feminize and masculinize and pluralize them like the enactant
تَقُوْلُ مَرَرْتُ بِرَجُلٍ حَسَنِ الْوَجْهِ أَبُوْهُ 160٨٨٥٠٨ you say marar-tu bi-rajulᵢₙ ḥasanᵢ ـl-wajhᵢ Ɂabū-hu
«I passed by a man beautiful of the face of his father»
«I passed by a man whose father was beautiful of face»
«I passed by a man whose father's face was beautiful»
كَمَا تَقُوْلُ مَرَرْتُ بِرَجُلٍ حَسَنٍ أَبُوْهُ 161٦٨٥٨٣ as you say marar-tu bi-rajulᵢₙ ḥasanᵢₙ Ɂabū-hu
«I passed by a man[gen] beautiful[gen] his father[nom] (was/is)»
«I passed by a man whose father was beautiful»
وَهُوَ مِثْلُ قَوْلِكَ مَرَرْتُ بِرَجُلٍ ضَاْرِبٍ أَبُوْهُ 162٨٥٥٢١ and it is like your saying marar-tu bi-rajulᵢₙ ḍāribᵢₙ Ɂabū-hu
«I passed by a man[gen] striking[gen] his father[nom] (was/is)»
«I passed by a man whose father was striking»
فَإِنْ جِئْتَ بِـخَيْرٍ مِنْكَ أَوْ عِشْرِيْنَ رَفَعْتَ 163٦٣٨٤٨ then if you come with ẋayrᵢₙ min-ka
better than you
 or ʕišrīna
twenty
 you foreground
I.e. مَرَرْتُ بِرَجُلٍ خَيْرٌ مِنْكَ أَبُوْهُ rather than مَرَرْتُ بِرَجُلٍ خَيْرٍ مِنْكَ أَبُوْهُ
لِأَنَّهَا مُلْحَقَةٌ بِالْأَسْمَاءِ لَا تَعْمَلُ عَمَلَ الْفِعْلِ 164١٤٢٤١ since they are adjuncts to the nominals and do not perform the elaboration of the action
Elatives like خَيرٌ مِنْكَ (and similarly some number words like عِشْرُوْنَ, see below) are descriptors (صِفات), but they are “annexed” to the category of nominals (like رَجُل), which do not express “action” semantically, nor do they elaborate like verbs do.
فَلَمْ تَقْوَ قُوَّةَ الْمُشَبَّهَةِ 165٦٥٤٤٣ so they do not have the power of what is assimilated
The elatives are not as powerful as the quasi-participles
كَمَا لَمْ تَقْوَ الْمُشَبَّهَةُ قُوَّةَ مَا جَرَى مَجْرَى الْفِعْلِ 166٩٧٧٩٩ just as what is assimilated does not have the power of what follows the course of the action
The quasi-participles are not as powerful as the participles.
وَتَقُوْلُ هُوَ خَيْرُ رَجُلٍ فِي النَّاْسِ 167٠٤٠٧٦ and you say huwa xayrᵘ rajulᵢₙ fī _n-nāsᵢ
«He is the most-excellent man of the people»
وَ هُوَ أَفْرَهُ عَبْدٍ فِي النَّاْسِ 168١٤٢١٥ and huwa Ɂafrahᵘ ʕᵃb°dᵢₙ fī _n-nāsᵢ
«He is the most skillful slave in/among the people»
لِأَنَّ الْفَاْرِهَ هُوَ الْعَبْدُ 169٤٥٠٥٥ since the fārih
Active participle: the one who is skilled
 is the slave
وَلَمْ تُلْقِ أَفْرَهَ وَلَا خَيْرًا عَلَى غَيْرِهِ 170١٨٨٦٣ and you do not cast ˀafrahᵃ
more-skilled
 nor ẋayrᵃⁿ
excellent
 on something else
ثُمَّ تَخْتَصُّ شَيْئًا 171٢٢٤٦٣ and then specialize something
فَالْمَعْنَى مُخْتَلِفٌ 172٥٠٦٦٣ for the meaning is different
وَلَيْسَ هُنَا فَصْلٌ 173٧٣٣٧٤ and there is no separation
i.e. no مِنْ term as in elatives like خَيْرٌ مِنْكَ وَجْهًا
here
وَلَمْ يَلْزَمْ إِلِّا تَرْكُ التَّنْوِيْنِ 174٨٩٤٥٦ and nothing except omission of the tanwīn is obligatory
كَمَا أَنَّ عِشْرِيْنَ وَخَيْرًا مِنْكَ 175٥٦٨٤٩ like that ʕišrīna
twenty
 and ẋayrᵃⁿ min-ka
better than you
لَمْ يَلْزَمْ فِيْهِ إِلَا التَّنْوِيْنُ 176٠٥٧٧٩ nothing is obligatory in it except the tanwīn
وَلَمْ يُدْخِلُوْا الْأَلْفَ وَاللَّامَ 177٣٧٩٢٥ and they do not introduce the alif and the lâm
كَمَا لَمْ يُدْخِلُوْهُ فِي الْأَوَّلِ 178٤٢٥٧١ just as they do not introduce it
the alif-lām, treated as a single term, hence هُ
 in the preceding
I.e. the elatives like خَيْرٌ مِنْكَ رَجُلًا.
وَتَفْسِيْرُهُ تَفْسِيْرُ الْأَوَّلُ 179٠٦٢٩٣ and its explanation is the explanation of the preceding
وَإِنَّمَا أَرَادُوْا أَفْرَهَ الْعَبِيْدِ 180٥١٧٠٢ and yet they intend ˀafrahᵃ _l-ʕabīdᵢ
the most-skillful of the slaves
وَ خَيْرَ الْأَعْمَالِ 181٥٣٨٢٠ and ẋayrᵃ _l-Ɂaʕmālᵢ
the most-excellent of the works
وَإِنَّمَا أَثْبَتُوْا الْأَلْفَ وَاللَّامَ فِي قَوْلِهِمْ أَفْضَلُ النَّاسِ 182٣٥٩٤٥ and yet they fix the alif and the lâm in their saying ˀafḍalᵘ _n-nāsᵢ
the most-eminent of the people
لِأَنَّ الْأَوَّلَ قَدْ يَصْيِرُ بِهِ مَعْرِفَةً 183٠٢١٠٩ since the antecedent
i.e. أَفْضَلُ
 may become by it recognized
فَأَثْبَتُوْا الْأَلِفَ وَاللَّامَ وَبِنَاءَ الْجَمِيْعِ وَلَمْ يُنَوَّنْ 184٦٣٢١٧ so they fix the alif and the lâm and the construction of the aggregated, and it is not nūnated
The antecedent descriptor (i.e. أَفْضَلُ, or جَيْرٌ in جَيْرُ النَّاسِ) is not nunāted.
وَفَرَقُوْا بِتَرْكِ النُّوْنِ وَالتَّنْوْيِنِ بَيْنَ مَعْنَيَيْنِ 185٠٢١٨٧ so they distinguish, by omitting of the nūn and the tanwīn, between two meanings
I.e. between comparatives like خَيْرٌ مِنْكَ (with tanwīn), and superlatives like خَيْرُ النَّاسِ (without tanwīn).
الْفِعْلُ الْمُنْفَذُ غَيْرُ الْمُتَعَدِّي إلى مَفْعُولٍ
وَقَدْ جَاْءَ مِنْ الْفِعْلِ مَا قَدْ أُنْفِذَ إِلَى مَفْعُوْلٍ 186٥٩٩٧٩ and and an action may come, that has been transmitted to a coactum
I.e. a “pseudo-transitive” verb: an intransitive verb that nontheless “transmits” (grammatically) to a direct object (takes an accusative complement).
وَلَمْ يَقْوَ قُوَّةَ غَيْرِهِ مِمَّا قَدْ تَعَدَّى إِلَى مَفْعُوْلٍ 187٤٦٤٢٥ and it has not the power of other verbs, which may overstep to a coactum
Such pseudo-transitives do not have the “power” of genuine transitive verbs.
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُكَ امْتَلَأْتُ مَاْءً 188٩٩٩٧٣ and that is your saying _imtalaɁ-tu māɁᵃⁿ
«I became full of water[acc]»
وَتَفَقَّأْتُ شَحْمًا 189٩٣٠٤٩ and tafaqqaɁ-tu šaḥmᵃⁿ
«I almost burst of fat[acc]»
وَلَا تَقُوْلُ *امْتَلَأْتُهُ وَلَا تَفَقَّأْتُهُ 190٢٣١٦٣ and you do not say *_imtalaɁ-tu-hu
*I became full it
 nor *tafaqqaɁ-tu-hu
*I almost burst it
وَلَا يَعْمَلُ فِي غَيْرِهِ مِنَ الْمَعَاْرِفِ 191٨٦٢٦١ and nor does it elaborate in any other recognized terms
E.g. امْتَلَأْتُ cannot take an explicitly definite complement (like الْمَاْءَ the water, or مَاْءَ النَّهْرِ the water of the river), just as it cannot take a definite pronoun complement.
وَلَا يُقَدَّمُ الْمَفْعُوْلُ فِيْهِ 192٢٦٦٥٠ and the coactum is not forepositioned in it
Here فِيْهِ “in it” refers to any expression deploying such a pseudo-transitive, like امْتَلَأْتُ مَاْءً. In other words, it is the مفعول that is not forepositioned (in such expressions), rather than the مفعول فيه.
فَتَقُوْلَ مَاْءً امْتَلَأْتُ 193٤٤١٩٠ such that you say * māɁᵃⁿ _imtalaɁ-tu
*«Of water I became full»
كَمَا لَا يُقَدَّمُ الْمَفْعُوْلُ فِيْهِ 194٦١٤٧٠ just as the coactum is not forepositioned in it
فِي الصِّفِةِ الْمُشَبَّهَةِ وَلَا فِي هٰذِهِ الْأَسْمَاءِ 195٣٨٨٤٤ in the assimilated descriptor
I.e. هٰذا وَجْهًا حَسَنٌ is disallowed.
 nor in these nominals
Here he's referring back to the elatives; e.g. هُوَ خَيْرٌ وَجْهًا مِنْكَ is disallowed.
لِأَنَّهَا لَيْسَتْ كَالْفَاعِلِ 196٨٥٦٥٠ since they are not like the enactant
The فاعِل has the “power” to support its arguments in either order. Compare هٰذا رَجُلٌ ضارِبٌ أَبُوهُ عَمْرًا “This is a man whose father[nom] is striking Amr[acc]” and هٰذا رَجُلٌ ضارِبٌ عَمْرًا أَبُوهُ, which has the same meaning, with the complements reversed.
وَذٰلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ فِعْلٌ لَا يَتَعَدَّى إِلَى مَفْعُوْلٍ 197٥٩٣١٠ and that is because it
Here he resumes reference to pseudo-transitives like امْتَلَأْتُ, which are semantically intranstive.
 is an action that does not overstep to a coactum
وَإِنَّمَا هُوَ بِمَنْزِلَةِ الانْفِعَالِ 198٢٨٢٠٣ but rather it has the disposition of _l-infiɁāl
I.e. form VII verbs, which are (usually) intransitive.
لَا يَتَعَدَّى إِلَى مَفْعُوْلٍ 199٤١١٦٨ not overstepping to a coactum
نَحْوُ كَسَرْتُهُ فَانْكَسَرَ 200٥١٦١٥ such as kasar-tu-hu fa-_nkasara
«I broke it so it broke»
وَدَفَعْتُهُ فَانْدَفَعَ 201٤٦٦٩٧ and dafaʕ-tu-hu fa-_ndafaʕa
«I pushed it so it [was] pushed»
فَهٰذَا النَّحْوُ إِنَّمَا يَكُوْنُ فِي نَفْسِهِ 202٠٤٩٩١ for this such-as indeed is in itself
I.e. is reflexive
وَلَا يَقَعُ عَلَى شَئٍ 203٠٨٥٠٧ and it doe not fall on anything
فَصَارَ امْتَلَأْتُ مِنْ هٰذَا الضَّرْبِ 204٨٩٣٤٨ so _imtalaˀ-tu
I became full
 becomes of this type
كَأَنَّكَ قُلْتَ مَلَأَنِي فَامْتَلَأْتُ 205٧٤٧٦٩ as if you say malaɁ-nī fa-_mtalaɁ-tu
«It filled me so I became full»
وَمِثْلُهُ دَحْرَجْتُهُ فَتَدَحْرَجَ 206٢٨٥٩٤ and like it is daḥraj-tu-hu ta-tadaḥraja
«I rolled it so it rolled»
وَإِنَّمَا أَصْلُهُ امْتَلَأْتُ مِنَ الْمَاْءِ 207٥٩٨٨٨ and indeed its base is _imtalaɁ-tu mina _l-māɁᵢ
«I became full of water»
وَتَفَقَّأْتُ مِنَ الشَّحْمِ 208٧٩٣٦٦ and tafaqqaɁ-tu mina _š-šaḥmᵢ
«I almost burst from the fat»
فَحُذِفَ هٰذَا اسْتِخْفَاْفًا 209٧٥١٥٢ so this is excised for lightening
وَكَاْنَ الْفِعْلُ أَجْدَرَ أَنَ يَتَعَدَّى إِذْ كَاْنَ هٰذَا يَنْفُذُ 210١٨١٥٣ and the action is more suited that it overstep, when this transmits
وَهُوَ فِي أَنَّهُمْ ضَعَّفُوْهُ مِثْلُهُ 211٩٨١٧٢ and it is like it, even though they deem it weak
وَتَقُوْلُ هُوَ أَشْجَعُ النَّاْسِ رَجُلًا 212٨٤٧٧٥ and you say huwa Ɂašjaʕᵘ _n-nāsᵢ rajulᵃⁿ
«He is the most-courageous of the people, as a man[acc]»
وَهُمَا خَيْرُ النَّاْسِ اثْنَيْنِ 213٧٩٧٣٧ and humā xayrᵘ _n-nāsᵢ _θnayni
«They[2] are the best of the people, as two»
فَالْمَجْرُوْرُ هُنَا بِمَنْزِلَةِ التَّنْوِيْنِ 214٦١٣٠٠ well the retracted term here has the disposition of the tanwīn
E.g. in خَيْرُ النَّاسِ the term النَّاسِ is substitute (alternative, compensation) for the tanwīn of خَيْرٌ. The tanwīn is in complementary distribution with the مُضاف إليه (and the alif-lām): one of the three is required in order to form a complete noun. (NB: خَيْرُ النَّاسِ has the disposition of a single noun.) Similarly for أَشْجَعُ النَّاْسِ: even though أَشْجَعُ is a diptote that does not take an explicit tanwīn, nonetheless in this Ɂiḍāfah construction, النّاس has the disposition of tanwīn, so أَشْجَعُ النَّاْسِ has the disposition of a single noun.
وَانْتَصَبَ الـرَّجُلُ وَالِـاثْنَاْنِ 215١٠٥٩٠ and _r-rajulᵘ
the “man”
 and _l-ـiθnāni
the “two”
 are raised
WARNING: here Sībawayhi refers to the terms رَجُلًا and اِثْنَيْنِ in the previous two examples, not by quoting them verbatim, but by “naming” them using the alif-lām. So the sense is “the words 'man' and 'two'”. But they are in the nominative case in this explanatory sentence, while they are in the accusative in the examples. In other words this is a kind of quasi-quote: he does not quote the terms verbatim, but he does refer to them, by use rather than mention, inflecting them locally.
كَمَا انْتَصَبَ الْوَجْهُ فِي قَوْلِكَ 216٦٥٩٥٠ just as _l-wajhᵘ
the face
 is raised in your saying
هُوَ أَحْسَنُ مِنْهُ وَجْهًا 217٠٣٤٤١ huwa Ɂaḥsanᵘ min-hu wajhᵃⁿ
«He is more-beautiful than him in respect of face[acc]»
وَلَا يَكُوْنُ إِلَّا نَكِرَةً 218٧٢٢٧٥ and it
I.e. the accusative complement of a superlative construction, like رَخُلًا and اثْنَيْنِ in the examples.
 is only unrecognized
كَمَا لَمْ يَكُنْ ثَمَّةَ إِلَّا نَكِرَةً 219٣١٩٩٢ as it is only unrecognized there
In comparative constructions like أَحْسَنُ مِنْهُ
وَالرَّجُلُ هُوَ الِاسْمُ الْمُبْتَدَأُ 220٠٤٨٥٩ and the man, he is the made initial nominal
Meaning the man referred to in هُوَ أَشْجَعُ النَّاْسِ رَجُلًا. The made initial noun is هُوَ, which is definite, while رَجُلًا is indefinite: it describes the definite. In other words, رَجُلًا and هُوَ are co-referential. Contrast this with هو أحْسَنُ مِنْكَ وَجْهًا, where وَجْهًا is not co-referential with the antecedent هُوَ but rather is مِنْ سَبَبِهِ “of its correlate”.
وَالِاثْنَاْنِ كَذٰلِكَ 221٧٤٤٩٩ and the two are like that
إِنَّمَا مَعْنَاهُ هُوَ خَيْرُ رَجُلٍ فِي النَّاْسِ 222٥٥٣٨١ yet its meaning is huwa xayrᵘ rajulᵢₙ fī _n-nāsᵢ
«He is the best man among the people»
«He is best of a man in the people»
وَهُمَا خَيْرُ اثْنَيْنِ فِي النَّاْسِ 223٦٢٠٢٥ and humā xayrᵘ _θnayni fī _n-nāsᵢ
«They[2] are the best of two among the people»
«They[2] are the best of two in the people»
وَإِنْ شِئْتَ لَمْ تَجْعَلْهُ الْأَوَّلَ 224٧٥٤٦٧ and if you will, you do not make it the antecedent
I.e. you do not treat the (accusative) complement of the صِفة as applying to a correlate of the antecedent (مِنْ سَبَبِهِ), as مَاْلًا in the following example.
فَتَقُوْلُ هُوَ أَكْثَرُ النَّاْسِ مَاْلًا 225٠٢٨٧١ so you say huwa Ɂkθarᵘ _n-nāsᵢ mālᵃⁿ
«He is the wealthiest of the people»
«He is the most copious of the people, in wealth»
مَجْرَى أَسْمَاءِ الْعَدَدِ
وَمِمَّا أُجْرِيَ هٰذَا الْمُجْرَى أَسْمَاْءُ الْعَدَدِ 226٧٦١٠٢ and among what is made to follow this course are the nominals of number
تَقُوْلُ فِيْمَا كَاْنَ لِأَدْنَى الْعِدَّةِ 227٥٧٣٣٤ you say in what is for the least of number
I.e. three through nine. NB: عَدَدٌ “a number” vs. عِدَّةٌ “an enumerated group (set)”, a number of some things.
بِالْإِضَاْفَةِ إِلَى مَا يُبْنَى لِجَمْعِ أَدْنَى الْعَدَدِ 228٠٣٧٩٤ by associating to what is constructed for the aggregate of the least of the number
I.e. the paucal plural form, which is specific to 3-9 items.
إِلَى أَدْنَى الْعُقُوْدِ 229٣٠٨٢٢ up to the least of the knots
I.e. ten. Singular: عَقْدٌ, literally “knot”, figuratively, a decadal number (10, 20,..., 90), then hundreds (100, 200,..., 900), then thousands.
وَتُدْخِلُ فِي الْمُضَاْفِ إِلَيْهِ الْأَلِفَ وَالَّلامَ 230٩٥٦٣٦ and you may introduce the alif and the lâm in what is associated-to
لِأَنَّهُ يَكُوْنُ الْأَوَّلُ بِهِ مَعْرِفَةً 231٨٢٤٦١ since the antecedent becomes recognized by it
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُكَ ثَلَاثَةُ أَبْوَاْبٍ وَأَرْبَعَةُ أَنْفُسٍ وَأَرْبَعَةُ أَثْوَاْبٍ 232٢٠٧٤٩ and that is your saying θalāθatᵘ ˀabwābᵢₙ
three of doors
 and ˀarbaʕatᵘ ˀanfusᵢₙ
four of souls
 and ˀarbaʕatᵘ ˀaθwābᵢₙ
four of garments
وَكَذٰلِكَ تَقُوْلُ فِيْمَا بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَ الْعَشَرَةِ 233٦٩٦٨١ and similarly you say, in what is between you and between the ten
وَإِذَا أَدْخَلْتَ الْأَلِفَ وَاللَّامَ 234٤٣١٤٢ and when you introduce the alif and the lâm
قُلْتَ خَمْسَةُ الْأَثْوَاْبِ وَسِتَّةُ الْأَجْمَاْلِ 235٩٤٢٦٩ you say ẋamsatᵘ _l-Ɂaθwābᵢ
five of the garments
 and sittatᵘ _l-Ɂajmālᵢ
six of the (male) camels
فَلَا يَكُوْنُ هٰذَا أَبَدًا إِلَّا غَيْرَ مُنَوَّنٍ 236٦٨٦٤٦ so this never becomes anything but non-nūnated
يَلْزَمُهُ أَمْرٌ وَاْحِدٌ لِمَا ذَكَرْتُ لَكَ 237٨٩٧١٤ a single order
“Order” in the sense of organizing principle, discipline, or rule, rather then command.
 is obligatory to it, due to what I mentioned to you
فَإِذَا زِدْتَ عَلَى الْعَشَرَةِ 238٧٤٤٤٦ then if you augment on the ten
شَيْئًا مِنْ أَسْمَاْءِ أَدْنَى الْعَدَدِ 239٤٧٧٧٠ one of the nominals of the least of the number
فَإِنَّهُ يُجْعَلُ مَعَ الْأَوَّلِ اسْمًا وَاْحِدًا اسْتِخْفَاْفًا 240٢١٦٠٥ then it is made, with the antecedent, a single nominal in lightening
وَيَكُوْنُ فِي مَوْضِعِ اسْمٍ مُنَوَّنٍ 241٩٩٣٨٠ and it becomes in a situation of a nūnated nominal
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُكَ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ دِرْهَمًا 242٩١٦٧١ and that is your saying Ɂaḥada ʕašara dirhamᵃⁿ
one[m]-and-ten[m] dirham(s)[acc]
وَ اثْنَا عَشَرَ دِرْهَمًا 243٧٤٤٨٤ and _iθnā ʕašara dirhamᵃⁿ
two[m]-and-ten[m] dirham(s)[acc]
وَ إِحْدَى عَشْرَةَ جَاْرِيَةً 244١٨١٥١ and Ɂiḥdã ʕašrata jāriyatᵃⁿ
one[f]-and-ten[f] slave-women[acc]
فَعَلَى هٰذَا يُجْرَى مِنْ الْوَاْحِدِ إِلَى التِّسْعَةِ 245٨٣٦٤٠ so on this itis made to flow, from the one to the nine
I.e. from 11 to 20 (formed by augmenting 10 by 1 to 9).
فَإِذَا ضَاْعَفْتَ أَدْنَى الْعُقُوْدِ 246١١٣٠٧ then if you multiply the least of the knots
I.e. 10
كَاْنَ لَهُ اسْمٌ مِنْ لَفْظِهِ 247٩٠٦٦٤ it has a nominal from its pronunciation
The words for decadals except 20 (ثَلاثُوْنَ, أَرْبَعُوْنَ, etc.) are derived from the names of the multipliers (3-9) (ثلاث, أَرْبَع, etc).
وَلَا يُثَنَّى الْعَقْدُ 248٦١٠٤٣ and the knot is not dualized
I.e. one does not say عَشَرَاْنِ, “two tens”
وَيُجْرَى ذٰلِكَ الِاسْمُ مُجْرَى الْوَاْحِدِ 249١٥٩٥٦ and that nominal is made to follow the course of the singular
الَّذِي لَحِقَتْهُ الزِّيَاْدَةُ لِلْجَمْعِ 250٢٧٨٩٧ which the augment for aggregation
Referring to the sound plural suffix ـُونَ [nom], ـِيْنَ [acc, gen]
 adjoins
كَمَا لَحِقَتْهُ الزِّيَاْدَةُ لِلتَّثْنِيَةِ 251٦٣٠٣٣ just as the augment for dualization
Referring to the dual suffix ـَاْنِ [nom], ـَيْنِ [acc, gen]
 adjoins it
وَيَكُوْنُ حَرْفُ الْإِعْرَاْبِ الْوَاْوَ وَالْيَاْءَ 252٨٢٠٥٥ and the term of arabization becomes the wāw and the yāˀ
وَبَعْدَهُمَا النُّوْنُ 253٠٩٥٥٤ and after them[2], the nūn
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُكَ عِشْرُوْنَ دِرْهَمًا 254٦٩٨٢٣ and that is your saying ʕišrūna dirhamᵃⁿ
twenty dirham(s)
فَإِنْ أَرَدْتَ أَنْ تُثَلِّثَ أَدْنَى الْعُقُوْدِ 255٥٣٦٢٢ and if you intend to triple the least of the knots
كَاْنَ لَهُ اسْمٌ مِنْ لَفْظِ الثَّلَاثَةِ 256٧٠٤٥٩ it has a nominal from the pronunciation of θalāθah
يَجْرِي مَجْرَى الِاسْمِ الَّذِي كَاْنَ لِلتَّثْنِيَةِ 257٠٣٥٥٥ it follows the course of the nominal that is for dualization
Referring specifically to the “dualized” ten, which is عِشْرُوْنَ.
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُكَ ثَلَاثُوْنَ عَبْدًا 258٩١١٢١ and that is your saying θalāθūna ʕabdᵃⁿ
thirty slaves
وَكَذٰلِكَ إِلَى أَنْ تُتَسِّعَهُ 259٢٧٨٧٢ and similarly up to ninety
Lit. “that you nine-ize it”, i.e make 10 nine-fold.
وَتَكُوْنُ النُّوْنُ لَازَمَةً لَهُ 260٠٣٢٩١ and the nūn becomes obligatory for it
كَمَا كَاْنَ تَرْكُ التَّنْوِيْنِ لَازِمًا لِلثَّلَاثَةِ إِلَى الْعَشَرَةِ 261٨٢٦٣٣ just as omission of the tanwīn is obligatory for three to ten
وَإِنَّمَا فَعَلُوْا هٰذَا بِهٰذِهِ الْأَسْمَاْءِ 262٣٣٤١٦ and yet they do this with these nominals
وَأَلْزَمُوْهَا وَجَهًا وَاْحِدًا 263٣٣٦٩٤ and they make a single way obligatory for them
لِأَنَّهَا لَيْسَتْ كَالصِّفَةِ الَّتِي فِي مَعْنَى الْفِعْلِ 264٢٦٥٠٦ since they are not like the descriptor having the meaning of the action
وَلَا الَّتِي شُبِّهَتْ بِهَا 265٣٣٣٤٠ nor what is assimilated with it
فَلَمْ تَقْوَ تِلْكَ الْقُوَّةَ 266٦١٣٣٠ for it has not that power
وَلَمْ يَجُزْ حِيْنَ جَاوَزْتَ أَدْنَى الْعُقُوْدِ 267٦٥٧٠٣ and it does not pass,
I.e. is not acceptable
 when you surpass the least of the knots
فِيْمَا تُبَيِّنُ بِهِ مِنْ أَىِّ صِنْفٍ الْعَدَدُ 268٥٣٨٥٣ with respect to that with which you clarify the number, of which kind it is
إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُوْنَ لَفْظُهُ وَاْحِدًا 269٩٧٥٤٤ unless its pronunciation be a singular
وَلَا تَكُوْنُ فِيْهِ الْأَلِفُ وَاللَّامُ 270١١٨٠٦ and the alif and the lâm not be in it
لِمَا ذَكَرْتُ لَكَ 271٢٩٩٤٥ due to what I mentioned to you
وَكَذٰلِكَ هُوَ إِلَى التِّسْعِيْنَ 272٢٩٩٠٥ and likewise is it up to ninety
فِيْمَا يَعْمَلُ فِيْهِ 273٠٥٥٦٥ in that in which it elaborates
وَيُبَيَّنُ بِهِ مِنْ أَيِّ صِنْفٍ الْعَدَدُ 274٩٢٧١٠ and by which is clarified, of which kind the number is
فَإِذَا بَلَغْتَ الْعَقْدَ الَّذِي يَلِيْهِ 275٥٦٤٧٧ then when you reach the knot following it
I.e 100
تَرَكْتَ التَّنْوِينَ وَالنُّوْنَ وَأَضَفْتَ 276٦٨٢٤٥ you omit the tanwīn and the nūn and you associate
وَجَعَلْتَ الَّذِي يَعْمَلُ فِيْهِ 277٠٩٩٣٠ and you make that in which it elaborates
وَيُبَيَّنُ بِهِ الْعَدَدُ مِنْ أَىِّ صِنْفٍ هُوَ 278٧٤٧١٩ and by which is clarified the number, of which kind it is,
وَاْحِدًا 279٩٥٠٩١ a singular term
كَمَا فَعَلْتَ ذٰلِكَ فِيْمَا نَوَّنْتَ فِيْهِ 280٤١٣٠٨ just as you do that, in that in which you nūnate
E.g. عِشْرُوْنَ دِرْهَمًا, where عِشْرُوْنَ is nūnated and دِرْهَمًا is a singular term clarifying “twenty of what kind?”
إِلِّا أَنَّكَ تُدْخِلَ فِيْهِ الْأَلِفَ وَاللَّامَ 281٩٣٨٠٤ except that you may introduce in it the alif and the lâm
لِأَنَّ الْأَوَّلَ يَكُوْنُ بِهِ مَعْرِفَةً 282٨٢٤٠٣ since the antecedent
The number word, e.g. مِائَةُ.
 becomes recognized by it
“It” refers to the alif-lām, construed as a single term (حرف).
وَلَا يَكُوْنُ الْمُنَوَّنُ بِهِ مَعْرِفَةً 283٨٦٧٨٢ and what is nūnated does not become recognized by it
Adding alif-lām to the term clarifying the kind of the number does not make the nūnated number word definite, e.g. عِشْرُوْنَ مِنَ الدَّراهِمِ or مِائَةٌ مِنَ الدَّرَاْهِمِ.
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُكَ مِائَةُ دِرْهَمٍ 284٩٥٢٠١ and that is your saying miɁatᵘ dirhamᵢₙ
a hundred dirhams (lit: a hundred of a dirham[gen])
وَمِائَةُ الدِّرْهَمِ 285٨٣٤٠٢ and miɁatᵘ _d-dirhamᵢ
the hundred dirhams (lit: the hundred of the dirham[gen])
وَذٰلِكَ إِنْ ضَاْعَفْتَهُ قُلْتَ 286٤٢٥٣٣ and that is if you multiply it, you say
مِائَتَا دِرْهَمٍ 287١٤٨٥٨ miɁatā dirhamᵢₙ
«two hundred dirhams»
«two hundred of a dirham»
وَمِائَتَا الدِّيْنَاْرِ 288٠٠٨١٣ and miɁatā ـd-dīnārᵢ
«two hundred dīnārs»
«two hundred ofthe dīnār»
وَكَذٰلِكَ الْعَقْدُ الَّذِي بَعْدَهُ 289٦٢٣٤٤ and like that is the knot which is after it
I.e. 1,000, which follows 900.
وَاْحَدًا كَاْنَ أَوْ مُثَنًّى 290٦٣٧٤٥ whether it is singular or dualized
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُكَ 291٣٨٩١٥ and that is your saying
أَلْفُ دِرْهَمٍ 292٨٧٢٩٧ Ɂalfᵘ dirhamᵢₙ
«a thousand dirhams»
«a thousand of a dirham»
وَأَلْفَا دِرْهَمٍ 293٥١٨٨٤ and Ɂalfā dirhamᵢₙ
«two thousand dirhams»
«two thousand of a dirham»
وَقَدْ جَاْءَ فِي الشِّعْرِ بَعْضُ هٰذَا مُنَوَّنًا 294٨٠١٠٥ and some of this, nūnated, has come in poetry
قَالَ الرُّبَيْعُ بْنُ ضَبُعٍ الْفَزَاْرِيُّ 295٧٤٤٠٤ and _r-Rubayʕᵘ bnᵘ Ḍabuʕᵢₙ _l-Fazāriyyᵘ said
296٠٣٥٤٦
وَقَاْلَ 297٩٤٦٧٠ and he said
298٠٩٤٨١
وَأَمَّا ثَلٰثُمِائَةٍ إِلَى تِسْعِمِائَةٍ 299٨٦٢٩٣ as for θalāθᵘ-miɁatᵢₙ
three of a hundred (three-hundred)
 to tisʕᵢ-miɁatᵢₙ
nine of a hundred (nine-hundred)
فَكَاْنَ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ تَكُوْنَ فِي الْقِيَاْسِ مِئِيْنَ أَوْ مِئَاتٍ 300٣٠٦٦٨ well it should be, by rule, miɁīna
hundreds (masc. sound plural)
 or miɁātᵢₙ
hundreds (fem. sound plural)
وَلَكِنَّهُمْ شَبَّهُوْهُ بِـعِشْرِيْنَ وَأَحَدَ عَشَرَ 301١١٠٩٠ but they assimilate it to ʕišrīna
twenty
 and Ɂaḥada ʕašara
eleven
حَيْثُ جَعَلُوْا مَا يُبَيَّنُ بِهِ الْعَدَدُ وَاْحِدًا 302١٦١٩٢ insofar as they make that by which the number is clarified
E.g. in “three-hundred”, the (sub)term “hundred” clarifies “three” (responds to “three of what?”)
a singular
لِأَنَّهُ اسْمٌ لِعَدَدٍ 303٠٣٦٠٤ since it is a nominal for a number
كَمَا أَنَّ عِشْرِيْنَ اسْمٌ لِعَدَدٍ 304٤٠٣٥٤ just as ʕišrīna
twenty
 is a nominal for a number
وَلَيْسَ بِمُسْتَنْكَرٍ فِي كَلَامِهِمْ 305٤٨٥٤٨ and it is not unknown in their speech
أَنْ يَكُوْنَ اللَّفْظُ وَاْحِدًا وَالْمَعْنَى جَمِيْعٌ 306٩٩٥٤٤ that the pronunciation be singular and the meaning be plural
حَتَّى قَاْلَ بَعْضُهُمْ فِي الشِّعْرِ مِنْ ذٰلِكَ 307٧٩٧٦٥ to the extent that some of them say of that, in poetry,
مَا لَا يُسْتَعْمَلُ فِي الْكَلَامِ 308٥٣٤١٣ what is not used in speech
وَقَاْلَ عَلْقَمَةُ بْنُ عَبْدَةَ 309٠٢٠١١ and ʕAlqamatᵘ bnᵘ ʕAbdatᵃ said
310٨٣١٩٥
وَقَاْلَ 311٣٤٥٠٦ and he said
312٤٢٦٤٦
فَاخْتُصَّ التَّثْلِيْثُ بِهٰذَا الْبَاْبِ إِلَى تِسْعِمِائَةٍ 313٨٠٥٤٢ so triplication up to nine-hundred
He means multiplying 100s, starting by tripling to get 300 and proceeding up to 900.
 is specified in this topic
لَدُنْ غُدْوَةً
كَمَا أَنَّ لَدُنْ لَهَا فِي غُدْوَةً حَاْلٌ لَيْسَتْ فِي غَيْرِهَا تُنْصَبُ بِهَا 314٧٦١٤٧ just as ladun
at/when (عِنْدَ)
 in ġudwatᵃⁿ
early in the morning
 has a circumstance not in others, by which it is raised
كَأَنَّهُ أَلْحَقَ التَّنْوِينَ فِي لُغَةِ مَنْ قَالَ لَدُ 315٠٥١٣١ as if he adjoins the tanwīn in the diction of those who say ladᵘ
at/when (عِنْدَ)
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُكَ مِنْ لَدُنْ غُدْوَةً 316٦٠٨٨٠ and that is your saying min ladun gudwatᵃⁿ
«in the early morning»
وَقَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ لَدًا غُدْوَةً 317٦٧١٧٣ and some of them say ladᵃⁿ gudwatᵃⁿ
«in the early morning»
كَأَنَّهُ أَسْكَنَ الدَّالَّ ثُمَّ فَتَحَهَا 318٦٤٣٠٥ as if he immobilized the dāl then opened it
كَمَا قَالَ اضْرِبَنْ زَيْدًا 319٣٩٥٣٦ as one says _iḍriban zaydᵃⁿ
«Strike-you[emphatic] Zayd!»
فَفُتِحَ الْبَاءُ لَمَّا جَاءَ بِالنُّوْنِ الْخَفِيْفَةِ 320٠٨٩٥٧ so the fāˀ is opened when one comes with the lightened nūn
وَالْجَرُّ فِي غُدْوَةٍ هُوَ الْوَجْهُ وَالْقِيَاسُ 321٩٣٤٣٥ and the retraction in ġudwatᵢₙ
early morning
 it is the way and the rule
وَتَكُوْنُ النُّوْنُ مِنْ نَفْسِ الْحَرْفِ 322٦٥٢٤١ and the nūn is of the same term
Meaning, the nūn of لَدُنْ is is standardly treated as being part of the word. (?)
بِمَنْزِلَةِ نُوْنِ مِنْ وَعَنْ 323٧٨٦٢٣ having the disposition of the nūn of min
from, of
 and ʕan
from
الشَّذُّ فِي بعض الكلام
فَقَدْ يَشِذُّ الشَّيْءُ مِنْ كَلَامِهِمْ عَنْ نَظَاْئِرِهِ 324٧٩٤٤٦ and the thing may stand apart from its counterparts in their speech
وَيَسْتَخِفُّوْنَ الشَّيْءَ فِي مَوْضِعٍ وَ لَا يَسْتَخِفُّوْنَهُ فِي غَيْرِهِ 325٩٨٣٤٦ and they lighten the thing in one situation and do not lighten it in another
وَذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُمْ مَا شَعَرْتُ بِهِ شِعْرَةً وَلَيْتَ شِعْرِي 326٦٨١٨٢ and that is their saying mā šaʕar-tu bi-hi šiʕratᵃⁿ
«I did not understand a whit of it»
 and layta šiʕrī
«Would that I knew»
وَيَقُوْلُوْنَ الْعَمْرُ وَالْعُمْرُ 327٥٢٣٥٥ and they say _l-ʕamrᵘ
(the) life
 and _l-ʕumrᵘ
(the) life
لَا يَقُوْلُوْنَ فِي الْيَمِيْنِ إِلَّا بِالْفَتْحِ 328٧٠١٤٢ they do not say in the oath except with the opening
يَقُوْلُوْنَ كُلُّهُمْ لَعَمْرُكَ 329٢٢٩٨٩ they all say la-ʕamrᵘka
by your life
وَسَتَرَى أَشْبَاْهَ هٰذَا أَيْضًا فِي كَلَامِهِمْ إِنْ شَاْءَ اللّٰهُ 330٣٠٠٧٦ and you will see what are similar to this also in their speech, if God will
وَمِمَّا جَاْءَ فِي الشِّعْرِ 331٧١٢٦٨ and among what comes in poetry
عَلَى لَفْظِ الْوَاْحِدِ يُرَاْدُ بِهِ الْجَمِيْعُ 332٢١٢٥٧ on the pronunciation of the singular by which the plural is intended, is
333٤٢٧٤٩
وَمِثْلُ ذٰلِكَ فِي الْكَلَامِ قَوْلُهُ تَبَاْرَكَ وَتَعَاْلَى 334٨٨٨٣١ and like that in speech is his saying, Blessed and Exalted be He,
فَإِنْ طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْهُ نَفْسًا 335٧٧١١١
وَقَرِرْنَا بِهِ عَيْنًا 336٧٣٣١٥ and qarir-nā bi-hi ʕaynᵃⁿ
«We became cool in eye thereby»
«We became happy/at ease thereby»
وَإِنْ شِئْتَ قُلْتُ أَعْيُنًا وَأَنْفُسًا 337٣٧٩٧٦ and if you will you say ˀaʕyunᵃⁿ
in eyes
 and ˀanfusᵃⁿ
in souls
كَمَا قُلْتَ ثَلَاثُمِائَةٍ وَثَلَاثُ مِئِيْنَ وَمِئَاتٍ 338١٢١٥٦ as you say θalāθu-miɁatᵢₙ
three of a hundred[sg]
 and θalāθu-miɁīna
three of hundreds[m.pl]
 and miɁātᵢₙ
hundreds[f.pl]
وَلَمْ يُدْخِلُوَا الْأَلِفَ وَاللَّامَ 339٩٢٥١٨ and they do not introduce the alif and the lâm
كَمَا لَمْ يُدْخِلُوَا فِي امْتَلَأْتُ مَاْءً 340٤٦٥٣٩ as they do not introduce in _imtalaˀ-tu māˀᵃⁿ
I became full in water

Commentary

Elatives

Segments 121 - 185

Pseudo-transitive Verbs

Segments 186 - 211

Numbers

Segments 226 - 313

Dicta

  1. هٰذَا حَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ
    hāðăthis
    ḥasanᵘ ـl-wajhᵢ⌊beautifulofthe-face⌋
    «This[masc] is (someone) beautiful of face»
    NB: حَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ remains نَكِرَة (unrecognized, “indefinite”), semantically equivalent to حَسَنٌ الْوَجْهُ.
  2. هٰذِهِ حَسَنَةُ الْوَجْهِ
    hāðihithis[f]
    ḥasanatᵘ ـl-wajhᵢ⌊beautifulofthe-face⌋
    «This[fem] is (someone) beautiful of face»
  3. هٰذَا ضَاْرِبُ الرَّجُلِ
    hāðăthis
    ḍāribᵘ ـr-rajulᵢ⌊strikingᵘofthe-man⌋
    «This[m] is someone striking the man[gen]»
    «This[m] strikes the man[gen]»
    «This[m] [one is a] striker [of] the man»
    Sībawayhi has explained in Ch. 37 that ضاربُ الرَّجُلِ is semantically equivalent to ضاربٌ الرَّجُلَ; they “lighten” by dropping the tanwīn, but this does not change the meaning.
  4. هٰذِهِ ضَاْرِبَةُ الرَّجُلِ
    hāðihithis[f]
    ḍᵃårᵢbᵃtᵘ ـr-rajulᵢ⌊striking[f]ofthe-man⌋
    «This[f.] is (someone[fem]) striking the man»
    «This[f.] [one is a] striker [of] the man»
  5. هُوَ أَحْمَرُ بَيْنَ الْعَيْنَيْنِ
    huwahe
    Ɂaḥmarᵘred
    baynabetween
    _l-ʕaynaynithe [2]eyes
    «He is red between the eyes»
    «He is red of what is between the eyes»
  6. هُوَ جَيِّدُ وَجْهِ الدَّاْرِ
    huwahe
    jayyidᵘ wajhᵢ ـd-dārᵢ⌊most-excellentof⌊chiefofthe-tribe⌋⌋
    «He is the most excellent chief of the tribe(?)»
    «It is the most excellent face(?) of the district/town?»
    «It is the best time of the year(?)»
  7. هُوَ حَدِيْثُ عَهْدٍ بِالْوَجَعِ
    huwahe
    ḥadīθᵘ ʕahdᵢₙ⌊recentofanera⌋
    bi-_l-wajaɁᵢwith-the-pain
    «He is recent of pain»
    «He is recent of time with pain»
  8. هٰذَا الْحَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ
    hāðăthis
    _l-ḥasanᵘ ـl-wajhᵢ⌊the-beautifulofthe-face⌋
    «This [is] the beautiful [one], of face»
  9. الضَّاْرِبُ زَيْدًا
    _ḍ-ḍāribᵘthe-striker[m]ᵘ
    zaydᵃⁿZaydᵃⁿ
    «the one striking Zayd»
  10. هُوَ الْحَسَنُ الْوَجْهَ
    huwahe
    _l-ḥasanᵘthe-beautiful
    ـl-wajhᵃthe-face
    «He is the beautiful [one] [in] the face[acc]»
    «He is the beautiful [one] face-wise»
    Here الْحَسَنُ is the عامِل (factor) that elaborates الْوَجْهَ with naṣb.
  11. هُوَ الْحَسَنُ الْوَجْهِ
    huwahe
    _l-ḥasanᵘ ـl-wajhᵢ⌊the-beautifulofthe-face⌋
    «He is the one who is beautiful[nom] of face[gen]»
    In this case حَسَنُ is مُضَاْف to الْوَجْهِ; the resulting iḍafah is indefinite, since حَسَن is a صِفَة مُشَبَّهَة; the leading ال makes it definite.
  12. هُوَ الضَّاْرِبُ الرَّجُلِ
    huwahe
    _ḍ-ḍāribᵘ ـr-rajulᵢ⌊the-striker[m]ᵘofthe-man⌋
    «He [is] the one who struck[nom] the man[gen]»
    Explicated in Ch. 39: الضَّارِبُ here means الَّذي ضَرَبَ.
  13. هُمُ الطَّيِّبُوْنَ الْأَخْبَاْرَ
    humuthey
    ـṭ-ṭayyibᵘẘnathe-pleasant[m.pl]
    _l-Ɂaxbārᵃthe-tidings
    «They are the ones who are pleasant [in] tidings[.acc]»
    Caution: not an idafah. Here الطَّيِّبُوْنَ is a صِفة مُشَبَّهَة that functions like a verb, putting its argument الْأَخْبَاْرَ in naṣb case.
  14. هُمَا الْحَسَنَاْنِ الْوُجُوْهَ
    humāthey[2]
    _l-ḥasanānibeautiful
    _l-wujūhᵃthe-faces
    «They[2] are the two who are beautiful[2] [in] face[pl.acc].»
  15. هٰؤُلَاءِ الضَّاْرِبُو زَيْدٍ
    hāɁulāɁithose
    _ḍ-ḍāribᵘẘ zaydᵢₙ⌊the-strikersofZaydᵢₙ⌋
    «Those are the ones who struck Zayd[.gen]»
  16. هُمُ الطَّيِّبُو أَخْبَاْرٍ
    humuthey
    ـṭ-ṭayyibᵘẘ Ɂaxbārᵢₙ⌊the-pleasant[m.pl]oftidings⌋
    «They are the ones who are pleasant[m.pl] of tidings[.gen]»
  17. هُوَ خَيْرٌ مِنْكَ أَبًا
    huwahe
    xayrᵘⁿbetter
    min-kathan-you
    Ɂabᵃⁿinfatherᵃⁿ
    «He is better[nom] than-you in respect to a father[acc]»
    «His father is better than yours(?)»
    Not: He is better than you as a father.
  18. هُوَ أَحْسَنُ مِنْكَ وَجْهًا
    huwahe
    Ɂaḥsanᵘmore_beautiful
    min-kathan-you
    wajhᵃⁿinface
    «He is more-beautiful than-you in face[acc.indef]»
    «His face is more beautiful than yours»
  19. هُوَ خَيْرٌ عَمَلًا
    huwahe
    xayrᵘⁿbetter
    ʕamalᵃⁿinwork
    «He is better[nom] in work[acc.indef]»
    Here مِنْكَ is implicit.
  20. ضَرَبَ زَيْدًا عَمْرٌو
    ḍarabastruck-he
    zaydᵃⁿZaydᵃⁿ
    ʕamrᵘⁿʕAmrᵘⁿ
    «He struck Zayd, did Amr»
    «Struck-he, Zayd[.acc], Amr[.nom]»
    «Amr struck Zayd»
  21. هُوَ خَيْرٌ مِنْكَ أَعْمَاْلًا
    huwahe
    xayrᵘⁿbetter
    min-kathan-you
    Ɂaʕmālᵃⁿinworks
    «He is better than you in works»
  22. هٰذَا أَوَّلُ رَجُلٍ
    hāðăthis
    Ɂawwalᵘ rajulᵢₙ⌊firstofaman⌋
    «This is more prior of a man»
    «This is more preceding of a man»
    «This is a pre-eminent man»
    Meaning, هٰذَا أَوَّلُ الرِّجَاْلِ, this is the first of the men.
  23. هٰذَا أَوَّلُ الرِّجَاْلِ
    hāðăthis
    Ɂawwalᵘ _r-rijālᵢ⌊firstofthe-menᵢ⌋
    «[This is] the pre-eminent of the men»
  24. مَرَرْتُ بِرَجُلٍ حَسَنِ الْوَجْهِ أَبُوْهُ
    marar-tupassed-I
    bi-rajulᵢₙby-⌊a man⌋
    ḥasanᵢ ـl-wajhᵢ⌊beautifulofthe-face⌋
    Ɂabū-hu⌊thefatherᵘ-ofhim⌋
    «I passed by a man beautiful of the face of his father»
    «I passed by a man whose father was beautiful of face»
    «I passed by a man whose father's face was beautiful»
  25. مَرَرْتُ بِرَجُلٍ حَسَنٍ أَبُوْهُ
    marar-tupassed-I
    bi-rajulᵢₙby-⌊a man⌋
    ḥasanᵢₙbeautiful
    Ɂabū-hu⌊thefatherᵘ-ofhim⌋
    «I passed by a man[gen] beautiful[gen] his father[nom] (was/is)»
    «I passed by a man whose father was beautiful»
  26. مَرَرْتُ بِرَجُلٍ ضَاْرِبٍ أَبُوْهُ
    marar-tupassed-I
    bi-rajulᵢₙby-⌊a man⌋
    ḍāribᵢₙstrikingᵢₙ
    Ɂabū-hu⌊thefatherᵘ-ofhim⌋
    «I passed by a man[gen] striking[gen] his father[nom] (was/is)»
    «I passed by a man whose father was striking»
  27. هُوَ خَيْرُ رَجُلٍ في النَّاْسِ
    huwahe
    xayrᵘ rajulᵢₙ⌊most-exellentofaman⌋
    fīin
    _n-nāsᵢthe_people
    «He is the most-excellent man of the people»
  28. هُوَ أَفْرَهُ عَبْدٍ فِي النَّاْسِ
    huwa he
    Ɂafrahᵘ ʕᵃb°dᵢₙ⌊most-skillfulofaslave⌋
    fīin
    _n-nāsᵢthe_people
    «He is the most skillful slave in/among the people»
    NB: أَفْرَهُ عَبْدٍ means أَفْرَهُ الْعَبِيْدِ, most skillfull of the slaves[pl].
  29. امْتَلَأْتُ مَاْءً
    _imtalaɁ-tubecame-I full
    māɁᵃⁿwaterᵃ
    «I became full of water[acc]»
  30. تَفَقَّأْتُ شَحْمًا
    tafaqqaɁ-tu[almost] burst-I
    šaḥmᵃⁿfat[.acc]
    «I almost burst of fat[acc]»
  31. * مَاْءً امْتَلَأْتُ
    māɁᵃⁿwaterᵃ
    _imtalaɁ-tubecame-I full
    «Of water I became full»
  32. كَسَرْتُهُ فَانْكَسَرَ
    kasar-tu-hubroke-I-it
    fa-_nkasarait broke
    «I broke it so it broke»
  33. دَفَعْتُهُ فَانْدَفَعَ
    dafaʕ-tu-hupushed-I-it
    fa-_ndafaʕaso-it-pushed
    «I pushed it so it [was] pushed»
    Note that انْدَفَعَ is intransitive and reflexive, but not passive (as the English gloss misleadingly suggests).
  34. مَلَأَنِي فَامْتَلَأْتُ
    malaɁ-nīfilled-it me
    fa-_mtalaɁ-tuso became-I full
    «It filled me so I became full»
  35. دَحْرَجْتُهُ فَتَدَحْرَجَ
    daḥraj-tu-hurolled-I-it
    ta-tadaḥrajaso-it-rolled
    «I rolled it so it rolled»
  36. امْتَلَأْتُ مِنَ الْمَاْءِ
    _imtalaɁ-tubecame-I full
    minafrom
    _l-māɁᵢwaterᵃ
    «I became full of water»
  37. تَفَقَّأْتُ مِنَ الشَّحْمِ
    tafaqqaɁ-tu[almost] burst-I
    minafrom
    _š-šaḥmᵢthe fatᵢ
    «I almost burst from the fat»
  38. هُوَ أَشْجَعُ النَّاْسِ رَجُلًا
    huwahe
    Ɂašjaʕᵘmost courageous
    _n-nāsᵢthe_people
    rajulᵃⁿaman
    «He is the most-courageous of the people, as a man[acc]»
  39. هُمَا خَيْرُ النَّاْسِ اثْنَيْنِ
    humāthey[2]
    xayrᵘexcellentᵘⁿ
    _n-nāsᵢthe_people
    _θnaynitwo
    «They[2] are the best of the people, as two»
  40. هُوَ أَحْسَنُ مِنْهُ وَجْهًا
    huwahe
    Ɂaḥsanᵘmore_beautiful
    min-hufrom-him
    wajhᵃⁿinface
    «He is more-beautiful than him in respect of face[acc]»
  41. هُوَ خَيْرُ رَجُلٍ فِي النَّاْسِ
    huwahe
    xayrᵘexcellentᵘⁿ
    rajulᵢₙaman
    fīin
    _n-nāsᵢthe_people
    «He is the best man among the people»
    «He is best of a man in the people»
  42. هُمَا خَيْرُ اثْنَيْنِ في النَّاْسِ
    humāthey[2]
    xayrᵘexcellentᵘⁿ
    _θnaynitwo
    fīin
    _n-nāsᵢthe_people
    «They[2] are the best of two among the people»
    «They[2] are the best of two in the people»
  43. هُوَ أَكْثَرُ النَّاْسِ مَاْلًا
    huwahe
    Ɂkθarᵘmore copious
    _n-nāsᵢthe_people
    mālᵃⁿwealth
    «He is the wealthiest of the people»
    «He is the most copious of the people, in wealth»
  44. مِائَتَا دِرْهَمٍ
    miɁatātwo hundred
    dirhamᵢₙadirham
    «two hundred dirhams»
    «two hundred of a dirham»
  45. مِائَتَا الدِّيْنَاْرِ
    miɁatātwo hundred
    ـd-dīnārᵢ[الدِّيْنَاْرِ]
    «two hundred dīnārs»
    «two hundred ofthe dīnār»
  46. أَلْفُ دِرْهَمٍ
    Ɂalfᵘa thousand
    dirhamᵢₙadirham
    «a thousand dirhams»
    «a thousand of a dirham»
  47. أَلْفَا دِرْهَمٍ
    Ɂalfātwo thousand
    dirhamᵢₙadirham
    «two thousand dirhams»
    «two thousand of a dirham»
  48. مِنْ لَدُنْ غُدْوَةً
    minfrom
    ladunat
    gudwatᵃⁿearly morningᵃⁿ
    «in the early morning»
  49. لَدًا غُدْوَةً
    ladᵃⁿat
    gudwatᵃⁿearly morningᵃⁿ
    «in the early morning»
  50. اضْرِبَنْ زَيْدًا
    _iḍribanstrike
    zaydᵃⁿZaydᵃⁿ
    «Strike-you[emphatic] Zayd!»
  51. مَا شَعَرْتُ بِهِ شِعْرَةً
    mānot
    šaʕar-tuunderstood-I
    bi-hiby-him/it
    šiʕratᵃⁿa whit (of knowledge)
    «I did not understand a whit of it»
  52. لَيْتَ شِعْرِي
    laytawould that
    šiʕrīmy knowing
    «Would that I knew»
    Here شِعْرِي is شِعْرَتِي (my شِعْرَة) with the ت excised.
  53. قَرِرْنَا بِهِ عَيْنًا
    qarir-nāwe cooled
    bi-hiby-him/it
    ʕaynᵃⁿineye
    «We became cool in eye thereby»
    «We became happy/at ease thereby»

Poetry

  1. أَهْوَى لَهَا أَسْفَعُ الْخَدَّيْنِ مُطَّرِقٌ
    [أَهْوَى][أَهْوَى]
    [لَهَا][لَهَا]
    [أَسْفَعُ][أَسْفَعُ]
    [الْخَدَّيْنِ][الْخَدَّيْنِ]
    [مُطَّرِقٌ][مُطَّرِقٌ]
    رِيْشَ الْقَوَادِمِ لَمْ تُنْصَبْ لَهُ الشَّبَكُ
    [رِيْشَ][رِيْشَ]
    [الْقَوَادِمِ][الْقَوَادِمِ]
    [لَمْ][لَمْ]
    [تُنْصَبْ][تُنْصَبْ]
    la-hufor-it
    [الشَّبَكُ][الشَّبَكُ]
  2. مُحْتَبِكٌ ضَخْمٌ شُئُوْنَ الرَّأْسِ
    [مُحْتَبِكٌ][مُحْتَبِكٌ]
    [ضَخْمٌ][ضَخْمٌ]
    [شُئُوْنَ][شُئُوْنَ]
    [الرَّأْسِ][الرَّأْسِ]
  3. وَنَأْخُذْ بَعْدَهُ بِذِنَاْبِ عَيْشٍ
    [وَنَأْخُذْ][وَنَأْخُذْ]
    [بَعْدَهُ][بَعْدَهُ]
    [بِذِنَاْبِ][بِذِنَاْبِ]
    [عَيْشٍ][عَيْشٍ]
    أَجَبَّ الظَّهْرَ لَيْسَ لَهُ سَنَاْمُ
    [أَجَبَّ][أَجَبَّ]
    [الظَّهْرَ][الظَّهْرَ]
    laysanot-was
    la-hufor-it
    [سَنَاْمُ][سَنَاْمُ]
  4. أَلِكْنِي إِلَى قَوْمِي السَّلامَ رِسَاْلَةً
    [أَلِكْنِي][أَلِكْنِي]
    [إِلَى][إِلَى]
    [قَوْمِي][قَوْمِي]
    [السَّلامَ][السَّلامَ]
    [رِسَاْلَةً][رِسَاْلَةً]
    بِآيَةِ مَا كَاْنُوْا ضِعَاْفًا وَلَا عُزْلَا
    [بِآيَةِ][بِآيَةِ]
    mānot
    [كَاْنُوْا][كَاْنُوْا]
    [ضِعَاْفًا][ضِعَاْفًا]
    wa-lāand-not
    [عُزْلَا][عُزْلَا]
    وَلَا سَيِّئِي زِيٍّ إِذَا مَا تَلَبَّسُوْا
    wa-lāand-not
    [سَيِّئِي][سَيِّئِي]
    [زِيٍّ][زِيٍّ]
    Ɂiðāwhen
    mānot
    [تَلَبَّسُوْا][تَلَبَّسُوْا]
    إِلَى حَاْجَةٍ يَوْمًا مُخَيَّسَةً بُزْلَا
    [إِلَى][إِلَى]
    [حَاْجَةٍ][حَاْجَةٍ]
    [يَوْمًا][يَوْمًا]
    [مُخَيَّسَةً][مُخَيَّسَةً]
    [بُزْلَا][بُزْلَا]
  5. لَاحِقُ بَطْنِ بِقَرًا سَمِيْنِ
    [لَاحِقُ][لَاحِقُ]
    [بَطْنِ][بَطْنِ]
    [بِقَرًا][بِقَرًا]
    [سَمِيْنِ][سَمِيْنِ]
  6. كَأَنَّ أَثْوَاْبَ نَقّاْدٍ قُدِرْنَ لَهُ
    kᵃ-Ɂᵃn²ᵃas-that
    [أَثْوَاْبَ][أَثْوَاْبَ]
    [نَقّاْدٍ][نَقّاْدٍ]
    [قُدِرْنَ][قُدِرْنَ]
    la-hufor-it
    يَعْلُو بِخَمْلَتِها كَهْبَاءَ هُدَّابَا
    [يَعْلُو][يَعْلُو]
    [بِخَمْلَتِها][بِخَمْلَتِها]
    [كَهْبَاءَ][كَهْبَاءَ]
    [هُدَّابَا][هُدَّابَا]
  7. هَيْفَاءُ مُقْبِلَةً عَجْزَاءُ مُدْبِرَةً
    [هَيْفَاءُ][هَيْفَاءُ]
    [مُقْبِلَةً][مُقْبِلَةً]
    [عَجْزَاءُ][عَجْزَاءُ]
    [مُدْبِرَةً][مُدْبِرَةً]
    مَحْطُوْطَةٌ جُدِلَتْ شَنْبَاءُ أَنْيَابَا
    [مَحْطُوْطَةٌ][مَحْطُوْطَةٌ]
    [جُدِلَتْ][جُدِلَتْ]
    [شَنْبَاءُ][شَنْبَاءُ]
    [أَنْيَابَا][أَنْيَابَا]
  8. مِنْ حَبِيْبٍ أَوْ أَخِي ثِقَةٍ
    minfrom
    [حَبِيْبٍ][حَبِيْبٍ]
    ˀawor
    [أَخِي][أَخِي]
    [ثِقَةٍ][ثِقَةٍ]
    أَوْ عَدُوٍّ شَاْحِطٍ دَاْرَا
    ˀawor
    [عَدُوٍّ][عَدُوٍّ]
    [شَاْحِطٍ][شَاْحِطٍ]
    [دَاْرَا][دَاْرَا]
  9. أَمِنْ دِمْنَتَيْنِ عَرَّسَ الرَّكْبُ فِيْهِمَا
    [أَمِنْ][أَمِنْ]
    [دِمْنَتَيْنِ][دِمْنَتَيْنِ]
    [عَرَّسَ][عَرَّسَ]
    [الرَّكْبُ][الرَّكْبُ]
    [فِيْهِمَا][فِيْهِمَا]
    بِحَقْلِ الرُّخَاْمَى قَدْ عَفَا طَلَلَاهُمَا
    [بِحَقْلِ][بِحَقْلِ]
    [الرُّخَاْمَى][الرُّخَاْمَى]
    qadqad
    [عَفَا][عَفَا]
    [طَلَلَاهُمَا][طَلَلَاهُمَا]
    أَقَاْمَتْ عَلَى رَبْعَيْهِمَا جَارَتَا صَفًا
    [أَقَاْمَتْ][أَقَاْمَتْ]
    ʕalăupon
    [رَبْعَيْهِمَا][رَبْعَيْهِمَا]
    [جَارَتَا][جَارَتَا]
    [صَفًا][صَفًا]
    كُمَيْتَا الْأَعَاْلِي جَوْنَتَا مُصْطَلَاهُمَا
    [كُمَيْتَا][كُمَيْتَا]
    [الْأَعَاْلِي][الْأَعَاْلِي]
    [جَوْنَتَا][جَوْنَتَا]
    [مُصْطَلَاهُمَا][مُصْطَلَاهُمَا]
  10. الْحَزْنُ بَاْبًا وَالْعَقُوْرُ كَلْبًا
    [الْحَزْنُ][الْحَزْنُ]
    [بَاْبًا][بَاْبًا]
    [وَالْعَقُوْرُ][وَالْعَقُوْرُ]
    [كَلْبًا][كَلْبًا]
  11. فَمَا قَوْمِي بِثَعْلَبَةَ بْنِ سَعْدٍ
    [فَمَا][فَمَا]
    [قَوْمِي][قَوْمِي]
    [بِثَعْلَبَةَ][بِثَعْلَبَةَ]
    bnᵢson
    [سَعْدٍ][سَعْدٍ]
    وَلَا بِفَزَارَةَ الشُّعْرَى رِقَاْبَا
    wa-lāand-not
    [بِفَزَارَةَ][بِفَزَارَةَ]
    [الشُّعْرَى][الشُّعْرَى]
    [رِقَاْبَا][رِقَاْبَا]
  12. فَمَا قَوْمِي بِثَعْلَبَةَ بْنِ سَعْدٍ
    [فَمَا][فَمَا]
    [قَوْمِي][قَوْمِي]
    [بِثَعْلَبَةَ][بِثَعْلَبَةَ]
    bnᵢson
    [سَعْدٍ][سَعْدٍ]
    وَلَا بِفَزَارَةَ الشُّعْرِ الرِّقَابَا
    wa-lāand-not
    [بِفَزَارَةَ][بِفَزَارَةَ]
    [الشُّعْرِ][الشُّعْرِ]
    [الرِّقَابَا][الرِّقَابَا]
  13. لَا يَبْعَدَنْ قَوْمِي الَّذِيْنَ هُمُ
    lānot
    [يَبْعَدَنْ][يَبْعَدَنْ]
    [قَوْمِي][قَوْمِي]
    [الَّذِيْنَ][الَّذِيْنَ]
    humuthey
    سَمُّ الْعُدَاْةِ وَآفَةُ الْجُزْرِ
    [سَمُّ][سَمُّ]
    [الْعُدَاْةِ][الْعُدَاْةِ]
    [وَآفَةُ][وَآفَةُ]
    [الْجُزْرِ][الْجُزْرِ]
    النَّاْزِلُوْنَ بِكُلِّ مُعْتَرَكٍ
    [النَّاْزِلُوْنَ][النَّاْزِلُوْنَ]
    [بِكُلِّ][بِكُلِّ]
    [مُعْتَرَكٍ][مُعْتَرَكٍ]
    وَالطَّيِّبُوْنَ مَعَاْقِدَ الْأَزْرِ
    [وَالطَّيِّبُوْنَ][وَالطَّيِّبُوْنَ]
    [مَعَاْقِدَ][مَعَاْقِدَ]
    [الْأَزْرِ][الْأَزْرِ]
  14. الْحَاْفِظُو عَوْرَةَ الْعَشِيرَةِ
    [الْحَاْفِظُو][الْحَاْفِظُو]
    [عَوْرَةَ][عَوْرَةَ]
    [الْعَشِيرَةِ][الْعَشِيرَةِ]
  15. إِذَا عَاْشَ الْفَتَى مِائَتَيْنِ عَاْمًا
    Ɂiðāwhen
    [عَاْشَ][عَاْشَ]
    [الْفَتَى][الْفَتَى]
    [مِائَتَيْنِ][مِائَتَيْنِ]
    ʕāmᵃⁿyear
    فَقَدْ أَوْدَى الْمَسَرَّةُ وَالْفَتَاْءُ
    fa-qadqad
    [أَوْدَى][أَوْدَى]
    [الْمَسَرَّةُ][الْمَسَرَّةُ]
    [وَالْفَتَاْءُ][وَالْفَتَاْءُ]
  16. أَنْعَتُ عِيْرًا مِن حَمِيْرِ خَنْزَرَهْ
    [أَنْعَتُ][أَنْعَتُ]
    [عِيْرًا][عِيْرًا]
    [مِن][مِن]
    [حَمِيْرِ][حَمِيْرِ]
    [خَنْزَرَهْ][خَنْزَرَهْ]
    فِي كُلِّ عِيْرٍ مِائَتَاْنِ كَمَرَهْ
    fīin
    [كُلِّ][كُلِّ]
    [عِيْرٍ][عِيْرٍ]
    [مِائَتَاْنِ][مِائَتَاْنِ]
    [كَمَرَهْ][كَمَرَهْ]
  17. بِهَا جِيَفُ الْحَسْرَى فَأَمَّا عِظَاْمُهَا
    [بِهَا][بِهَا]
    [جِيَفُ][جِيَفُ]
    [الْحَسْرَى][الْحَسْرَى]
    fa-ˀammāso-⌊as for⌋
    [عِظَاْمُهَا][عِظَاْمُهَا]
    فَبِيْضٌ وَأَمَّا جِلْدُهَا فَصَلِيْبُ
    [فَبِيْضٌ][فَبِيْضٌ]
    [وَأَمَّا][وَأَمَّا]
    [جِلْدُهَا][جِلْدُهَا]
    [فَصَلِيْبُ][فَصَلِيْبُ]
  18. لَا تُنْكِرُوْا الْقَتْلَ وَقَدْ سُبِينَا
    lānot
    [تُنْكِرُوْا][تُنْكِرُوْا]
    [الْقَتْلَ][الْقَتْلَ]
    [وَقَدْ][وَقَدْ]
    [سُبِينَا][سُبِينَا]
    في حَلْقِكُمْ عَظْمٌ وَقَدْ شَجِينَا
    [في][في]
    [حَلْقِكُمْ][حَلْقِكُمْ]
    [عَظْمٌ][عَظْمٌ]
    [وَقَدْ][وَقَدْ]
    [شَجِينَا][شَجِينَا]
  19. كُلُوْا فِي بَعْضِ بَطْنِكُمُ تَعِفُّوْا
    [كُلُوْا][كُلُوْا]
    fīin
    [بَعْضِ][بَعْضِ]
    [بَطْنِكُمُ][بَطْنِكُمُ]
    [تَعِفُّوْا][تَعِفُّوْا]
    فَإِنَّ زَمَاْنَكُمْ زَمَنٌ خَمِيْصُ
    [فَإِنَّ][فَإِنَّ]
    [زَمَاْنَكُمْ][زَمَاْنَكُمْ]
    [زَمَنٌ][زَمَنٌ]
    [خَمِيْصُ][خَمِيْصُ]

Quran

  1. سورة ١٨ الْكَهْف آية ١٠٣قُلْ هَلْ نُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِٱلْأَخْسَرِيْنَ أَعْمَاْلًا
    [قُلْ][قُلْ]
    [هَلْ][هَلْ]
    [نُنَبِّئُكُمْ][نُنَبِّئُكُمْ]
    [بِٱلْأَخْسَرِيْنَ][بِٱلْأَخْسَرِيْنَ]
    Ɂaʕmālᵃⁿinworks
    Say: Shall We inform you who will be the greatest losers by their works?
  2. سورة ٤ النِّسَاء آية ٤فَإِنْ طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْهُ نَفْسًا
    [فَإِنْ][فَإِنْ]
    [طِبْنَ][طِبْنَ]
    [لَكُمْ][لَكُمْ]
    ʕanbeyond
    [شَيْءٍ][شَيْءٍ]
    min-hufrom-him
    [نَفْسًا][نَفْسًا]

Colophon

Pagination

Derenbourg
١-٨١
بلاق
١-٩٩
هارون
١-١٩٤
يعقوب
١-٢٥٦
البكّاء
١-٢٦٨

Status(revision / pct complete)

Last update
2026-04-02
Tashkeel
1 / 100%
Segmentation
1 / 100%
Dicta
1 / 100%
Poetry
1 / 100%
Quran
1 / 100%

Subscribe to Reading Sībawayhi

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.
[email protected]
Subscribe