Abstract
abstract...
Usage
باب ٦ هٰذَا بَاْبُ الاِسْتِقَاْمَةِ مِنَ الْكَلَاْمِ وَالْإِحَاْلَةِ
فَأَمَّا الْمُسْتَقِيْمُ الْحَسَنُ فَقَوْلُكَ أَتَيْتُكَ أَمْسِ وَسَآتِيْكَ غَدًا
well as for the consistent felicitouswell your saying came-I-you yesterdayᵢand ⌊shall I come-you⌋ tomorrowᵃⁿ
وَأَمَّا الْمُسْتَقِيْمُ الْكَذِبُ فَقَوْلُكَ حَمَلْتُ الْجَبَلَ وشَرِبْتُ مَاْءَ الْبَحْرِ وَنَحْوُهُ
and as for the consistent mendaciouswell your saying *carried-I the-mountainᵃ and *drank-I ⌊waterᵃofthe-oceanᵢ⌋and its like
وَأَمَّا الْمُسْتَقِيْمُ الْقَبِيْحُ فَأَنْ تَضَعَ اللَّفْظَ في غَيْرِ مَوْضِعِهِ نَحْوُ قَوْلِكَ قَدْ زَيْدًا رَأَيْتُ وَكَيْ زَيْدٌ يَأْتِيَكَ وَأَشْبَاْهُ هٰذَا
and as for the consistent homelywell, that you situate the vocalization in other than its situationlike your saying* Zaydᵃⁿ and* Zaydᵘⁿ and similar to that
Notes
notes...
باب ٢١ هٰذَا بَاْبُ الْإِضْمَاْرِ فِي لَيْسَ وَكَاْنَ كَالْإِضْمَاْرِ فِي إِنَّ
وَلَا يَجُوْزُ أَنْ تَقُوْلَ *مَا زَيْدًا عَبْدُ اللهِ ضَاْرِبًا
وَ*مَا زَيْدًا أَنَا قَاْتِلًا
لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَسْتَقِيْمُ
and it does not pass that you say*not Zaydᵃⁿ ⌊⌋ strikingᵃⁿand*not Zaydᵃⁿ I killingᵃⁿsince it is not consistent
كَمَا لَمْ يَسْتَقِمْ فِي كَاْنَ وَلَيْسَ أَنْ تُقَدِّمَ مَا يَعْمَلُ فِيْهِ الْآخِرُ فَإِنْ رَفَعْتَ الْخَبَرَ حَسُنَ حَمْلُهُ عَلَى اللُّغَةِ التَّمِيْمِيَّةِ
as it is not consistent in kāna and laysa that you foreposition that in which the last functionsso if you foreground the comment, carrying it upon the Tamīmī diction is felicitous
Notes
Why is مَا زَيْدًا عَبْدُ اللهِ ضَاْرِبًا not mustaqīm?
Sībawayhi has told us (in article 6) that إِحَالَة is
when “the last part of your speech contradicts (‘unravels’)
the first part”, and this is what happens in this dictum.
The first part is مَا زَيْدًا عَبْدُ اللهِ; this an
acceptable variant of مَا عَبْدُ اللهِ زَيْدًا (article
19?), with the comment forepositioned. This is a
straightforward equational “sentence”, which says that
Abdullah and Zayd are the same. Introducing ضَاْرِبًا
changes the trajectory of the utterance. If it
is to be taken as a verbal adjective whose subject is
عَبْدُ اللهِ and whose direct object is زَيْدًا,
then this forces a reinterpretation of the first part of the
sentence: ضَاْرِبًا contradicts the
first part of the sentence, hence the kalām is
inconsistent لا يَسْتَقِيْمُ.
He then states a general rule for kāna and laysa: a direct
object may not be forepositioned. Their situation is exactly
parallel to the situation here for مَا. So for
example you can go from عَبْدُ اللهِ ضَاْرِبٌ زَيْدًا
to كَاْنَ عَبْدُ اللهِ ضَاْرِبًا زَيْدًا
but not from there to كَاْنَ زَيْدًا عَبْدُ اللهِ ضَاْرِبًا.
However, the Tamīm do allow this forepositioning if
you foreground (رَفَعْتَ) the comment: مَا زَيْدًا عَبْدُ اللهِ ضَاْرِبٌ.
The rational for this is explained in Article 19.
باب ١٢١ هَذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَنْتَصِبُ فِيْهِ الْخَبَرُ لِأَنَّهُ خَبَرٌ لِمَعْرُوْفٍ يَرْتَفِعُ عَلَى الابْتِدَاْءِ قَدَّمَتْهَ أَوْ أَخَّرْتَهُ
باب ١٩٩ هَذَا بَاْبُ غَيْرٍ
Notes
NB: mustaqīm used here conceptually, not grammatically;
meaning “correct” in the sense of conforming to the norm? Or:
“true”? Makes more sense, otherwise, what is it that is
conformant? The subject of قَدْ يَسْتَقِيْمُ is “that he
came”, which can be true; but does it make sense to say it is
correct or conformant? The context and form strongly suggest a
reading of “true”. As in consistent with fact.
باب ٥٠٨ هٰذَا بَاْبُ عِدَّةِ مَا يَكُوْنُ عَلَيْهِ الْكَلِمُ
Commentary
TODO