Abstract
abstract..
Usage
باب ٦ هٰذَا بَاْبُ الاِسْتِقَاْمَةِ مِنَ الْكَلَاْمِ وَالْإِحَاْلَةِ
وأَمَّا الْمُحَاْلُ فَأَنْ تُنْقَضَ أَوَّلُ كَلَاْمِكَ بِآخِرِهِ فَتَقُوْلَ أَتَيْتُكَ غَدًا وَسَآتِيْكَ أَمْسِ
and as for the distorted
well, that the first of your discursive speech be unraveled by its lastso you saycame-I-you tomorrowᵃⁿandshall-I_come-you yesterday
and as for the distorted, the mendaciouswell that you say[fut.] I-drink waterᵃ the-oceanᵢ yesterday
Notes
notes...
باب ١٦ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَعْمَلُ فِيْهِ الْفِعْلُ فَيَنْتَصِبَ وَهُوَ حَاْلٌ وَقَعَ فِيْهِ الْفِعْلُ
هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَعْمَلُ فِيْهِ الْفِعْلُ فَيَنْتَصِبَ وَهُوَ حَاْلٌ وَقَعَ فِيْهِ الْفِعْلُ وَلَيْسَ بِمَفْعُوْلٍ كَـالثَّوْبِ فِي قَوْلِكَ كَسَوْتُ الثَّوْبَ
{
-donned-
-I-
} {
-the-
-garment{\leavevmode\color{red}{ᵃ}}-
}
وَلَجَاْزَ أَنْ تَقُوْلَ ضَرَبْتُ زَيْدًا أَبَاْكَ
وَضَرَبْتُ زَيْدًا الْقَاْئِمَ
لَا تُرِيْدُ بِالْأَبِ وَلَا بِالْقَاْئِمِ الصَّفَّةَ وَلَا الْبَدَلَ فَالِاسْمُ الْأَوَّلُ الْمَفْعُوْلُ فِي ضَرَبْتُ
قَدْ حَاْلَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْفِعْلِ أَنْ يَكُوْنَ فِيْهِ بِمَنْزِلَتِهِ كَمَا حَاْلَ الْفَاْعِلُ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْفِعْلِ فِي ذَهَبَ
أَنْ يَكُوْنَ فَاْعِلًا وَكَمَا حَاْلَتِ الْأَسْمَاْءُ الْمَجْرُوْرَةُ بَيْنَ مَا بَعْدَهَا وَبَيْنَ الْجَارِّ فَِي قَوْلِكَ لِي مِثْلُهُ رَجُلًا
وَلِي مِلْؤُهُ عَسَلًا
وَكَذٰلِكَ وَيْحَهُ فَاْرِسًا
وَكَمَا مَنَعَتِ النُّوْنُ فِي عِشْرِيْنَ
أَنْ يَكُوْنَ مَا بَعْدَهَا جَرًّا إِذَا قُلْتَ لَهُ عِشْرُوْنَ دِرْهَمًا
فَعَمَلُ الْفِعْلِ هُنَا فِيْمَا يَكُوْنُ حَاْلًا كَعَمَلِ مِثْلِهِ فِيْمَا بَعْدَهُ
struck-I Zaydᵃⁿ [أَبَاْكَ]struck-I Zaydᵃⁿ [الْقَاْئِمَ]for the first coactant ism instruck-I[i.e. Zaydan][what] has intervened between it and the actionthat it be in it in the disposition of [[لِي] [مِثْلُهُ] aman[لِي] [مِلْؤُهُ] [عَسَلًا][وَيْحَهُ] [فَاْرِسًا]for-it atwentyᵘⁿ [دِرْهَمًا]
Notes
idiomatic gloss: intervene, intercede, interfere
etym: detour; deflect; distort; de-?; "turn between"; disrupt?
How does the sense of intervene/intercede/prevent emerge from the perceptual sense?
Note the key phrase: فَالِاسْمُ الْأَوَّلُ الْمَفْعُوْلُ فِي ضَرَبْتُ
قَدْ حَاْلَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْفِعْلِ أَنْ يَكُوْنَ فِيْهِ بِمَنْزِلَتِهِ for the first coactant ism instruck-I[i.e. Zaydan][what] has intervened between it and the actionthat it be in it in the disposition of [: “for the first ism coactant in
darabtu (i.e. Zaydan), it ‘shifts’ between it [the hal term]
and the action, that it [the hal] be in it [the sentence] in
the disposition of it [i.e. coactant]. In other words, the
first direct object effects a shift in the trajectory of the
utterance, so that the following word (the hal) is prevented
from functioning as direct object. Now حَالَ أَنْ is
usually translated as "prevented", or "intervened" or
similar. But here a literal reading is better. The term
حَالٌ does not mean merely “state”; it is closely
related semantically to the verbal form and the sense of
shift or transient state, so this passages in more than just
word-play. Read حالَ أَنْ يكونَ فيه بمنزلتِه not as
“prevents that it [the hal term] be in its (i.e. the
coactant's) disposition” but as “shifts that it be” in that disposition. The concept
is not prevention but shifting, alteration. See the passage from article 240, cited
below, for a demonstation of how this is related to مُحال.
باب ١٧ هٰذَا بَاْبُ الْفِعْلِ الَّذِي يَتَعَدَّى ٱسْمَ الْفَاْعِلِ إِلَى الْمَفْعُوْلِ وَٱسْمُ الْفَاْعِلِ وَالْمَفْعُوْلِ فِيْهِ لِشَيْءٍ وَاْحِدٍ
باب ١٧ هٰذَا بَاْبُ الْفِعْلِ الَّذِي يَتَعَدَّى ٱسْمَ الْفَاْعِلِ إِلَى الْمَفْعُوْلِ وَٱسْمُ الْفَاْعِلِ وَالْمَفْعُوْلِ فِيْهِ لِشَيْءٍ وَاْحِدٍ
باب ٥٩ هٰذَا بَاْبٌ مَعْنَى الْوَاْوِ فِيْهِ كَمَعْنَاْهَا فِي الْبَاْبِ الْأَوَّلِ
باب ٨٢ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَنْتَصِبُ مِنَ الْمَصَاْدِرِ لِأَنَّهُ حَاْلٌ وَقَعَ فِيْهِ الْأَمْرُ فَاْنْتَصَبَ لِأَنَّهُ مَوْقُوْعٌ فِيْهِ الْأَمْرُ
باب ٩٠ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَنْتَصِبُ مِنَ الْمَصَاْدِرِ لِأَنَّهُ حَاْلٌ صَاْرَ فِيْهِ الْمَذْكُوْرُ
باب ٩٢ هٰذَا بَاْب مَا يَنْتَصِبُ مِنَ الْأَسْمَاْءِ الَّتِي لَيْسَتْ بِصِفَةٍ وَلَا مَصَاْدِرَ لِأَنَّهُ حَاْلٌ يَقَعُ فِيْهِ الْأَمْرُ فَيَنْتَصِبُ لِأَنَّهُ مَفْعُوْلٌ بِهِ
باب ٩٣ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَنْتَصِبُ فِيْهِ الِاْسْمُ لِأَنَّهُ حَاْلٌ يَقَعُ فِيْهِ السِّعْرُ وَإِنْ كُنْتَ لَمْ تَلْفَظْ بفِعْلٍ
باب ٩٧ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَنْتَصِبُ مِنَ الْأَسْمَاْءِ وَالصِّفَاْتِ لِأَنَّهَا أَحْوَاْلٌ تَقَعُ فِيْهَا الْأُمُوْرُ
باب ١١٧ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَنْتَصِبُ لِأَنَّهُ خَبَرٌ لِلمَعْرُوْفِ الْمَبْنِيِّ عَلَى مَا [ هُوَ ] قَبْلَهُ مِنْ الأَسْمَاْءِ الْمُبْهَمَةِ
باب ١١٨ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا غَلَبَتْ فِيْهِ الْمَعْرِفَةُ النَّكِرَةِ
باب ١٢٠ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَرْتَفِعُ فِيْهِ الْخَبَرُ لِأَنَّهُ مَبْنِيٌّ عَلَى مُبْتَدَإٍ أَوْ يَنْتَصِبُ فِيْهِ الْخَبَرُ لِأَنَّهُ حَاْلٌ لِمَعْرُوْفٍ مَبْنِيٍّ عَلَى مُبْتَدَإٍ
باب ١٢١ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَنْتَصِبُ فِيْهِ الْخَبَرُ لِأَنَّهُ خَبَرٌ لِمَعْرُوْفٍ يَرْتَفِعُ عَلَى الِابْتِدَاْءِ قَدَّمْتَهُ أَوْ أَخَّرْتَهُ
باب ١٢٧ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَنْتَصِبُ لِأَنَّهُ قَبِيْحٌ أَنْ يَكُوْنَ صِفَةً
باب ١٢٨ هٰذَا بَاْب مَا يَنْتَصِبُ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِنْ اسْمِ مَا قَبْلَهُ وَلَا هُوَ هُوَ
باب ١٩٤ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَكُوْنُ فِيْهِ إِلَّا وَمَا بَعْدَهُ وَصْفًا بِمَنْزِلَةِ مِثْلَ وَغَيْرَ
باب ٢٢٠ هُٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَكُوْنُ فِيْهِ هُوَ وَأَنْتَ وَأَنَا وَنَحْنُ وَأَخَوَاْتُهُنَّ فَصْلَا
باب ٢١٤ هُذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَكُوْنُ مُضْمَرًا فِيْهِ الِاسْمُ مُتَحَوِّلًا عَنْ حَاْلِهِ إِذَا أَظْهَرَ بَعْدَهُ الِاسْمُ
باب ٢٣٤ هٰذَا بَاْبُ الْحُرُوْفِ الَّتِي تُضْمَرُ فِيْهَا أَنْ
باب ٢٤٠ هٰذَا بَاْبُ مَا يَكُوْنُ الْعَمَلُ فِيْهِ مِنِ اثْنَيْنِ
وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ لَا يَجُوْزُ سِرْتُ حَتَّى أَدْخُلُهَا وَتَطْلُعُ الشَّمْسُ يَقُوْلُ إِذَا رَفَعْتَ طُلُوْعَ الشَّمْسِ لَمْ يُجُزْ وَإِنْ نَصَبْتَ وَقَدْ رَفَعْتَ فِعْلَكَ فَهُوَ مُحَاْلٌ حَتَّى تَنْصِبَ فِعْلَكَ مِنْ قِبَلِ الْعَطْفِ فَهٰذَا مُحَاْلٌ أَنْ تَرْفَعَ وَلَمْ يَكُنِ الرَّفْعُ لِأَنَّ طُلُوْعَ الشَّمْسِ لَا يَكُوْنُ أَنْ يُؤَدِّيْهِ سَيْرُكَ فَتَرْفَعَ تَطْلُعُ وَقَدْ حُلْتَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ النَّاْصِبَةِ
[سِرْتُ] until-that [أَدْخُلُهَا] [وَتَطْلُعُ] [الشَّمْسُ]
Notes
Clear example demonstrating connection between
مُحال and حال بين
باب ٢٤١ هٰذَا بَاْبُ الْــفَاْءِ
باب ٢٤٤ هُذَا بَاْبُ اشْتِرَاْكِ الْفِعْلِ فِي أَنْ وَانْقِطَاْعِ الْآخِرِ مِنَ الْأَوَّلِ الَّذِي عَمِلَ فِيْهِ أَنْ
باب ٢٥١ هٰذَا بَاْبُ الْجَزَاْءِ إِذَا كَاْنَ الْقَسَمُ فِي أَوَّلِهِ
باب ٣١٠ هُذَا بَاْبُ تَغْيِيْرِ الْأَسْمَاْءِ الْمُبْهَمَةِ إذَا صَاْرَتْ أَعْلَاْمًا خَاْصَةً
باب ٤٤٩ هٰذَا بَاْبٌ اسْتَفْعَلْتُ [وَتَفَعَّلْتُ]
Commentary
Two of Sībawayhi's most important terms are based on this triad:
حالḥāl and مُحالmᵘḥāl. The
former is usually glossed as “state; circumstance”; the
latter as “impossible; absurd”. However, such glosses
fail to capture the semantic commonality in the Arabic terms.
Basic principles of interpretation suggest that these terms must
carry the kernel sense of their base triad
حولḥwl, and that the kernel sense must be
grounded in sensation or at least direct experience. Based on
Sībawayhi's usage and evidence from the Lisān \_l-ʕarab, we infer
that the kernel sense of the triad حولḥwl is
phase shift, and we gloss
حَالḥᵃāl as phase and
مُحالmᵘḥāl as distorted.
But sometimes Sībawayhi uses {\xlitfont{ḥāl}}\xspace in a manner that
suggests a straightforward interpretation of “state”, as when he
refers to the {\xlitfont{ḥāl}}\xspace of the speaker or listener etc. (e.g. art. 17)
But even in that case we should read it as transient state.
The حال: compare
1) ذَهَبَ راكِبًا,
2) ذَهَبَ وَهُوَ راكِبٌ
1) says he went, riding, or by riding - the hal indicates transient state
2) says he went, and (simultaneousl) he was *a rider*. It does not express transient
state.
i.e. he went as a rider.
If hal meant just “state” then it would be appropriate to use it to describe the nominal
راكبٌ.
In fact in English we would do it the other way around: 2) but not 1) would involve
state.
Problem: ambiguity of English “state” wrt processes. What is a “state of riding”?
Isn't that a contradiction of terms?
Vs. “state of being a rider”.
variants:
حال مفعول فيه
حال موقوع فيه
حال صار فيه
seg ٤٧٢٠٢:
فِيَصِيْرُ الْخَبَرُ حَاْلًا قَدْ ثَبَتَ فِيْهَا وَصَاْرَ فِيْهَا
كَمَا كَاْنَ الظَرْفُ مَوْضِعًا قَدْ صِيْرَ فِيْهِ بِاْلنِّيَّةِ
etc.
See: essive case "In grammar, the essive case, or similaris case, (abbreviated ess)
is a grammatical case.[1] The essive case on a noun can express it as a definite period
of time during which something happens or during which a continuous action was completed.
It can also denote a form as a temporary location, state of being, or character in
which the subject was at a given time. The latter meaning is often described as the
equivalent of the English phrase "as a \_\_".[2]" (wikipedia) See also essive-modal
case
Glosses
\LR{\raggedright }Etymology
Analysis
The Lisān \_l-ʕarab provides indirect evidence of the experiential
basis of this triad. It lists [how many?] forms based on this
triad, and cites [how many?] usage patterns. The vast majority
of the citations can be seen as exemplars of the notion of a
specific kind of change: oscillation among phases, usually a
pair in binary opposition. For example,
حَوْلḥᵃẘl is glossed as سَنَةٌ
بِأَسْرِهَاsᵃnᵃħ{\leavevmode\color{blue}{\influn}} bᵢ-Ɂᵃsrᵢhᵃā, a whole year. Related
citations have the clear sense of the passage of a
year or years; and the passage of a year is a cyclical
oscillation from season (phase) to season, and from
year to year.
Note: for the Arabs, a year was not one orbit of the earth around the sun. Rather
years were marked by the passage of seasons - the phases of a year. Years were not
numbered until after the hijra; before that they would be remembered by signifiant
events, e.g. the year of a famous battle.
Other common terms based on this triad -- most of which retain
today the sense attested in the Lisān \_l-ʕarab -- also encode this
sense. For example, حَوَّلَḥᵃw²ᵃl{\leavevmode\color{red}{ᵃ}} and
تَحَوَّلَtᵃḥᵃw²ᵃl{\leavevmode\color{red}{ᵃ}}, still in use to convey the abstract
notion of change, show clear signs in the Lisān \_l-ʕarab
of an experiential basis in a specific kind of change: turning,
alternating, or the like. Today تَحَوَّلَ عَنْ
الشَّيْءِtᵃḥᵃw²ᵃlᵃ ʕᵃn \_lš²ᵃẙɁ{\leavevmode\color{red}{ᵢ}} would be read simple as “[it] changed from
the thing”; the Lisān \_l-ʕarab glosses it as زَالَ عَنْهُ
إِلَى غَيْرِهِzᵃālᵃ ʕᵃnhᵘ ʖᵢlᵃʎ gᵃẙrᵢh{\leavevmode\color{red}{ᵢ}}: “[it] went away or
disappeared from it to another”; that last
clause is critical, since it shows that the basic idea is not
abstract change but a specific kind of change,
one involving phased change, from one
pole to another.
A less obvious example is the term حِيْلَةḥᵢẙlᵃħ.
Wehr glosses as “artifice, ruse, strategem, maneuver,
subterfuge, wile, trick; device, shift; a means to accomplish an
end; expedient, makeshift, dodge, way out”. The Lisān \_l-ʕarab
supports such glosses, but the key term here is
shift (makeshift), taken in the
archaic senses of “[a]n expedient, an ingenious device for
effecting some purpose” (OED III.3.a); and “[a]
fraudulent or evasive device, a stratagem; a piece of sophistry,
an evasion, subterfuge” (OED III.4.a). But even this
archaic sense of shift carries the sense of
“[c]hange, substitution, succession” (OED IV),
“[c]hange of position, removal”(OED V). It is easy to
see from the citations and glosses in the Lisān \_l-ʕarab that the
sense of حِيلَةḥᵢylᵃħ is based on the more
fundamental notion of shifting or oscillating among phases.
The sense of حَالḥᵃāl, glossed by Wehr as
condition, state; situation; position, status,
etc. is also clearly traceable to the experiential sense of
phase shift. Two glosses in the Lisān \_l-ʕarab are
particularly revealing: one declares that the
حَالḥᵃāl of a man is مَا كَانَ عَلَيْهِ مِن خَيْرٍ أَوْ
شَرٍّ, “what he is about, of good and bad”. Not merely
his state, but “what he is on” between the polar opposites of good and
bad. Similarly, حَالَاتُ الدَّهْرِḥᵃālᵃātᵘ \_ł-d²ᵃhr{\leavevmode\color{red}{ᵢ}} is glossed
not as the states or conditions of
دَهْر, “time”, but as its صُرُوف,
turnings, i.e. its shifts or phases.
The term مُحَالmᵘḥᵃāl is a more difficult case.
Sībawayhi uses it in Article 6 to describe contradictory speech
(such as أَتَيْتُكَ غَدًاɁᵃtᵃẙtᵘkᵃ gᵃd$^{\leavevmode\color{blue}{\mbox{\small an}}}$ʌ, I came to you
tomorrow), in contrast to مُسْتَقِيمmᵘstᵃqᵢym,
straight speech (a in أَتَيْتُكَ أَمْسِɁᵃtᵃẙtᵘkᵃ Ɂᵃms{\leavevmode\color{red}{ᵢ}},
I came to you yesterday). Contemporary scholars
gloss this variously as “absurd”, “crooked”, or
even “wrong”. “Crooked” would seem to be the best
choice, since the Lisān \_l-ʕarab lists اِعْوِجَاج\_ᵢʕwᵢjᵃāj,
crookedness, curvature, etc., as the sense of some
words of this triad, and Sībawayhi presumably intended a direct
contrast with مُسْتَقِيمmᵘstᵃqᵢym
straight. Wrong is compatible with
this reading, insofar as its etymology is traceable to PIE
uer, turning (Shipley, \cite{}
p. 435); but it has the disadvantage of introducing a moral
component missing in Sībawayhi (pace Carter). Even
absurd can be defended on etymological grounds,
since it is traceable to the Latin absurdus,
“out of tune”; but today it carries a strong sense of
“silly, foolish” that is not evident in Sībawayhi's term.
The problem with all such glosses is that they fail to convey
the kernel sense of phased change, oscillation,
turning that is evident in words based on
حول. The English-speaking reader would have no way of
discerning the semantic relatedness of حَالḥᵃāl,
مُحَالmᵘḥᵃāl, and related terms. Unfortunately I
can find no idiomatic English term that does convey both this
kernel sense as well as Sībawayhi's explicitly noted sense of
contradiction (نَقْضnᵃqḍ). [BUT: literal sense of
نقضnqḍ is “unravel”, not “contradition”.] The
closest I can come is out-of-phase: an
utterance like “I came you you tomorrow” is
مُحَالmᵘḥᵃāl, out-of-phase,
because midway through it suffers an unacceptable phase shift
from past perfect to future.
Needless to say, we have no way of knowing what Sībawayhi actually
thought when he used such terms; but we do know
what he wrote. He may have intended
the moral sense of “wrong”, or the notion of
ridiculousness in “absurd”; but we have no way of
knowing. And even if we did, the need to expose the semantic
commonality of words based on the same triad should trump the
desire to expose a single dimension of the sense.
The importance of the principle of lexico-morphological
transparency is amply demonstrated in Article 16, which is the
first of many discussing the حَالḥᵃāl. There
Sībawayhi uses the verb حَالَ بَيْنَḥᵃālᵃ bᵃẙn{\leavevmode\color{red}{ᵃ}} to elucidate
the difference between a {\xlitfont{ḥāl}}\xspace complement and an ordinary
direct object (مَفْعُول بِهِmᵃfʕᵘwl bᵢh{\leavevmode\color{red}{ᵢ}}). A superficial
gloss of these terms -- prevent or
intervene for the verb, and state for
حَال -- would totally obscure the relatedness of the
concepts -- or perhaps the punning that Sībawayhi
undoubtedly intended to expose or even stress.