Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory and in Modern Usage
By YiSHAi Peled, Tel-Aviv
1. Introduction
One of the fundamental principles stated by the medieval Arab gram¬
marians is that a personal pronoun must be anaphoric, i. e. refer to some
antecedent — a specific noun (phrase) preceding it.' As I have shown
elsewhere [Peled (forthcoming)], cases of referential anticipatory
(cataphoric) pronouns are commoidy dealt with by the grammarians as
Za/z-phenomena, relatable through taqdir to underlying (ma'nä) struc¬
tures where the pronoun occiu-s anaphorically rather than cataphorical-
ly-
However, in their discussion of al-'idmär qabla l-dikr (anticipatory
pronouns) , the grammarians deal not only with referential but also with
non-referential pronouns, typically occurring in subject/topic position.
A non-referential pronoun, for the present discussion, is a pronoun
which refers to no specific noun phrase. In medieval Arabic grammati¬
cal theory there is one principle governing virtually all cases of non-
referential anticipatory pronouns, namely, that a pronoun of this kind
must be followed by some sentence-constituent functioning as an
exponent (tafsir) to it. Indeed, it is in this sense that the non-referen¬
tial pronoun is regarded by the grammarians as anticipatory. A clear-
cut distinction is drawn by the grammarians between cases where the
tafsir is a one-word (mufrad) constituent, and others where it is a fidl
clause functioning as an exponent to the non-referential anticipatory
pronoun.^ The pronoun in the latter type of sentence came to be referred
to by later grammarians as damir al-Sa'n.
' For discussion, see Zajjäji, 129; Peled (forthcoming).
^ See, e.g., Ibn Ya'iä 111, 118. For the use of the term tafsir in general, see, e.g., Peled (forthcoming). Note that after Sibawayhi, tafsir ia postulated as a requirement even in cases where the (implicit) anticipatory pronoun is referen¬
tial; see, e.g., Zajjäji, 130; Ihn Ya'iS 1, 77.
1
4 YisHAi Peled
2. The Medieval Concept of damir al-äa^n
In fact, a discussion of non-referential pronouns in pre-clause position
can be found already in Sibawayhi's al-Kitäb (258 ff. and cf. p. 27):
wa-mimmd yudmaru li-annahu yufassiruhu mä ba'dahu wa-lä yakünu
fi mawdi'ihi muzharun qawlu I-arabi Hnnahu kiramun qawmuka wa-
Hnnahu dahibatun 'amatuka (Sibawayhi, 259) — One of the cases of a pro¬
noun [that is used non-referentially] as it is expounded by what follows
it, and whose position is not available for a specific referential noun —
[can be exemplified by] the Arabic sentences: 'innahu kiramun qawmuka
('honourable are your people') and ^innahu dahibatun ^amatuka ('your
maid is going').
Sibawayhi then goes on to claim that the pronoun in each of the above
examples stands for the whole stretch of speech (hadit) ^ that follows it
(within the boundaries of the sentence) . This non-referential pronoun is
replaceable through taqdir (though not in practice) by a surrogate word
like al-amru ('the matter') for which the following clause is a predicate
(xabar) ; hence the clause that follows the pronoun functions as a predi¬
cate to that pronoun.
This concept of what was to be known in later periods as d^mir al-Sd'n
(henceforth: d.S.) was further developed by ZamaxSari and Ibn Ya'iS, as
can be seen in the following passage:
H'lam 'annahum 'idä 'arädü dikra jumlatin min-a l-jumali l-i-smiyyati
'aw-i l-fi%yyati fa-qad yuqaddimüna qablahä damiran yakünu kinäyatan
'an tilka l-jumlati wa-takünu l-jumlatu xabaran 'an ddlika l-damiri wa-
tafsiran lahu wa-yuwahhidüna l-damira li-'annahum yuridüna l-'amra
wa-l-hadita li-anrm kulla jumlatin Sa'nun wa-haditun wa-lä yafalüna
dötlika 'illä fi mawäqli'i l-tafximi wa-l-ta':^imi wa-dälika qawluka huwa
Zaydun qä'imun fa-huwa damirun lam yataqaddamhu ^ähirun Hnnamä
huwa damini l-Sa'ni wa-l-haditi wa-fassarahu mä ba'dahu min-a l-xabari
wa-huwa Zaydun qä'imun wa-lam ta'tifi hädihi l-jumlati bi-'ä'idin 'ilä l-
mubtada'i li-'annahä huwa fi l-ma'nä wa-li-dälika känat mufassiratan
lahu wa-yusammihi l-küfiyyüna l-damira l-majhüla li-'annahu lam yata¬
qaddamhu mä ya'üdu 'ilayhi (Ibn Ya'iS III, 114, 10) — Know that when
they want to cite a clause — either nominal or verbal — they may prepose
to it a pronoun that stands for that clause. In such cases the clause func¬
tions as an epexegetical xabar to that pronoun. The pronoun is in the
singular because it stands for the matter and story; indeed, every sen-
^ The grammatical use of the word al-Sa'n (or al-Sa'n wa-l-hadit) apparently originates elsewhere in Sibawayhi's al-Kitäb (415, 2; 420, 1). Sibawayhi, howev¬
er, did not use the term damir al-Sa'n.
tence [represents] a matter or a story. This [i. e. proposing a pronoun to
a clause] is done only in cases of emphasis and aggrandizement. For
example: huwa Zaydun qä'imun* ('Zayd is standing'), huwain this case
is a pronoun with no overt antecedent. This is a d^mir ai-Sa'n wa-l-hadit
('a pronoun of the matter and story')^ that is expounded by the following
xabar, Zaydun qä'imun. This [latter] clause contains no resumptive-ana¬
phoric pronoun ('ä'id) referring to the mubtada', because the clause and
the mubtada' are identical in meaning, and that is why it [i. e. the clause]
functions as an exponent to it [i. e. d.§.] . The Küfan grammarians term it
al-damir al-majhvl ('the non-specific pronoun') because it has no ante¬
cedent to which it refers.
As analogous to huwa Zaydun muntaliqun ('Zayd is leaving' — this is
ZamaxSari's first example for d.ä ) ZamaxSari quotes the Qm-'änic verse
qui huwa -llahu 'ahadun (CXII, 1 — 'Say: "He is Allah, One"' (Bell's translation)). The sjmtactic structm-e of this verse is discussed in detail
by a number of medieval Qur'än exegetes as well as by modem scholars.
Various arguments are advanced in favour of different syntactic inter¬
pretations' which may, however, be reduced to three major types of ana¬
lysis formidated as follows:
d.s. -mubtada' xabar
I 1 I ; 1
mubtada .rabar
I 1 I 1
(A) huwa -llahu 'ahadun
mubtada' xabar badal
I I I 1 I
(B) huwa -llahu 'ahadun
mubtada' xabar xabar tanin
(C) huwa -llahu 'ahadun
* Zajjäji (130) uses as an exämple the sentence 'innahu Zaydun qä'imun
('Zayd is standing'). ZamaxSari uses as further examples the sentences 'innahu 'amatu -Ilähi dahibatun ('the maid of God is going') and 'innahu man ya'tinä na'tihi ('whoever comes to us, we wUl come to him') (Ibn Ya'iä 111, 114).
^ ZamaxSari uses also do-mir al-qi§§a (Ibn Ya'iä III, 114). The common
English translation for d.ä. is 'the pronoun of the fact'; see, e. g., Weight 1, 285,
293; Cantarino, 430.
' See, e.g., Zamaxäari, 298; Tabari, 343; Baydäwi, 422; Jalälayn, 814; Cal-
VERLEY, 7-10; Newby, 127-8; Rubin, 197-200; Ambeos, 223-7; and ef Ibn
Ya'iä 111, 114.
6 YiSHAi Peled
Analysis (A), which falls into line with Ibn Ya'iS's analysis of huwa
Zaydun qä'imun (see above) , is explicitly applied by him to the sentence
'innahu Zaydun ddhibun {'Zayd is going'):
fa-1-hä'u damiru l-'amri wa-Zaydun dähibun mubtada'un wa-xabarunß
mawdi'i xabari l-'amri (Ibn Ya'iS III, 114, 25) — The [suffix] -hu is the
pronoun of the matter [damini l-'amr= d.S.] and [the words] Zaydun dd¬
hibun [respectively] function as mubtada' and xabar [together occupy¬
ing] the position of the xabar of the [pronoun of the] matter.
However, this analysis does not explain the function of huwa, unless
one accepts Ibn Ya'iS's statement that the pronoun in such cases is
motivated by tafxim and ta'zim (p. 4 above).' Analysis (B) is inadmis¬
sible, because an indefinite noun ('ahadun) cannot function as an appo-
sitive to a definite noun- (-llahu) . (C) is not altogether clear. The com¬
mentators who use the term xabar tänin do not specify the subject of the
second predicate or the relationship obtaining between the two predi¬
cates.* An attempt to clarify this point is made in section 4 below, where
the syntactic structure of the verse under discussion is reconsidered.
Furthermore, the medieval theory of d.S. was made to capture not
oidy sentences like those discussed above, but also cases like (l)-(4)
' On similar grounds one must reject the analysis:
subject predicate
I 1 1^ 1
head apnositive
I 1 r—^ 1
hmva -llahu 'ahadun (see Newby, 128; Ambros, 223); one
can hardly envisage a context which could warrant such an analysis in our case.
In another syntactic analysis, recorded by fabari (343, 22), huwa is presented as al-'imdd (a Küfan term for the non-referential pronominal copula that is com¬
moidy designated in Arabic grammatical terminology as daniir al-fa^l) . How¬
ever, the Qur'änic sentence adduced as evidence for this use of the pronoun is 'innahu 'and -llahu l-'azizu l-hakimu (XXVII, 9 — Bell's translation: '0 Moses, see, it is 1, Allah, the Sublime, the Wise'), which does not exhibit a pronominal copula in the sense of damir al-fa^l (for two possible sjTitactical analyses of the verse, see, e.g., Baydäwi). For related examples displaying the structure pro¬
noun + definite noun phrase -I- indefinite noun phrase, see section 4, esp. n. 14.
* However, in one of the interpretations recorded by Tabari (343, 24), huwa -Udhu 'ahadun is presented as a conflation of the two answers huwa -llahu and huwa 'ahadun which were respectively given by the Prophet to the following two questions of the polytheists: mä -lladi ta'fnidn ('what is it that you worship?') and mä huwa ('what is He?') (cf also p. 14 below). But this cannot justify or support analysis (C) , because a definite noun and a following indefinite noun cannot be
separately assigned as predicates to a single nominal (i.e. noun/pronoun) in
subject position (ef Ambros, 224). For the notion 'second predicate' as used Ln the indigenous Qur'än exegesis with reference to a certain presentative struc¬
ture, see Bloch, 80f
below (quoted from Ibn Ya'iä III, 1 14) where an anticipatory personal
pronoun is either attached to a di-transitive/i'Z qalbi (sentences (1) and
(2)) or incorporated in an auxiliary verb which normally takes a subject
in the nominative and a predicatival complement in the accusative (sen¬
tences (3) and (4)):
(1) zanantuhu Zaydun qäHmun — I thought that Zayd was standing.'"
(2) hasibtuhu qäma 'axüka — I thought that your brother was standing.
(3) käna Zaydun dähibun — It was the case that Zayd was going.
(4) laysa xalaqa -llahu mitlahu — It is not the case that God created
anyone like him.
The clitic -hu in (1) and (2) is regarded by Zamaxäari as analogous to
huwa in huwa Zaydun muntaliqun. Sentence (2) is adduced to illustrate
the occurrence of d.8. in pre-verbal- as well as in pre-nominal-clause
position. Similarly, the clauses that follow käna and laysa in (3) and (4)
are nominal and verbal respectively. However, these last two cases are
slightly more complicated. Clearly, the verbs käna and laysa function as
auxiliaries in both cases, but their grammatical effect ('amal) is marked¬
ly different from that of käna and laysa l-näqi^a: in (3) ddhibun is
assigned a nominative rather than an accusative case (dahiban), and in
(4) the auxiliary laysa is preposed to a verbal rather than to a nominal
clause. Obviously, neither of the sentences exhibits 'ism käna/laysa or
xabar käna/laysa. The medieval Arab grammarians thus admit cases
like (3) and (4) by drawing an analogy between käna Zaydun qä'imun
and huwa Zaydun qä'imun, claiming that käna in the former incorpo¬
rates a pronoun that, like huwa in the latter, functions non-referentially as d.ä.
In Reckendorf's extensive discussion of d.ä., the term is applied to
all the sentence structures cited in Zamaxäari's chapter on the subject
(Reckendorf [1898], 801 ff.). Yet, Reckendorf offers a different
analysis. In his view, d.ä. is a special case of an isolated natural subject.
He argues that in some of the cases d.ä. is used in order to avoid an inde¬
finite noun occurring in the position of the isolated natural subject. This
applies, in his view, to cases like 'innahu jä'at-i -mra'atun ('a woman
came')." Clearly, the analogy between d.ä. and an isolated natural sub-
' Cf Sibawayhi, 27 and Zajjäji, 130.
For a similar example, see Morsi and Kos, 384.
" Reckendorf rightly maintains that classical Arabic admits also 'innahä jä'at-i -mra'atun with gender-agreement between the d-S- and the subject of the following verbal clause; however, sueh eases are distinctly rare.
8 YiSHAi Peled
ject is based on the assumption that in both cases the xabar position is
filled by a clause rather than by a noun- (or otherwise prepositional)
phrase (see below). However, the medieval Arab grammarians draw a
clear-cut distinction between d §- and an isolated natural subject. On
the assumption that extraposition requires that the xabar of the isolated
natural subject display a resumptive-anaphoric pronoun ('ä'id) that is
coreferential with that subject (see, e.g., Ibn Ya'iS I, 91, 11), Ibn Ya'iä
points, as we have seen, to the absence of such a pronoun in cases like
huwa Zaydun qä'imun (pp. 4-5 above) . He argues that huwa represents
the proposition that is mapped into the following clause, and that this
fact accounts for the absence of an 'ä'id in Zaydun qä'imun. This point is
made clear by Zamaxäari (298) who contrasts huwa Zaydun muntaliqun
with Zaydun 'abühu muntaliqun ('Zayd, his father is leaving'), claiming
that in the latter sentence, exhibiting extraposition of the natural sub¬
ject, Zaydun and 'abühu have two distinct referents, which necessitates
the resumptive pronoun -hu in 'abühu as a liiddng device between the
isolated subject and the predicate. In huwa Zaydun muntaliqun, by con¬
trast, huwa has no specific referent, and as d.ä. it stands for the whole
clause following it. In other words, as a non-referential pronoun, huwa
does not, indeed caimot, require a resumptive pronoun, but it does
require exponence (tafsir), a function that is implemented by Zaydun
muntaliqun — the clause following it. Zamaxäari further draws an analo¬
gy between huwa Zaydun muntaliqun and Zaydun gulämulca ('Zayd is
your slave') , claiming that Zaydun muntaliqun occupies the position of a
one-word xabar like gulämulca in Zaydun gulämulca; and the latter dis¬
plays no 'ä'id, as there is no extraposition involved. The conclusion,
then, is that huwa in huwa Zaydun muntaliqun is not an isolated natural
subject but rather a d.ä. which does not require an 'ä'id in the clause fol-
lovidng it.
However, while rejecting the analogy between d.ä. and an isolated
natural subject, some of the grammarians emphasize that the slot of the
xabar of a d.ä. must obligatorily be filled by a full clause. Thus, with
regard to sentences like käna qä'iman Zaydun ('Zayd was standing'),
which are admitted by the Küfan grammarians but rejected by the
grammarians of Basra, Ibn Ya'iä states that the Basrans
lä yujizüna 'an yaküna xabaru ddlika l-damiri -sman mufradan li-'anna
ddlika l-damira huwa do-miru l-jumlati [my emphasis — Y.P.] fa-
yanbagi 'an yaküna I-xabaru jumlatan (Ibn Ya'iä III, 114, 19) — [The
grammarians of Basra] do not admit a single noun in the position of the
xabar of that pronoun [i. e. <}.&.], since that pronoun is the pronoun of
the clause, so the position of the xabar should properly be filled by a
clause.
However, as we shall see below, this does not necessarily mean that a
non-referential pronoun in mubtadaV'ism 'inna position can only be fol¬
lowed by a full clause.
3. The Sentence-type: Pro-topic -I- Phrasal Comment
Reconsidering the three sentences discussed by ZamaxSari:
(5) huwa Zaydun muntaliqun
(6) Zaydun gulämuka
(7) Zaydun 'abühu muntaliqun,
we can see that (5) is related by the medieval Arab grammarians to
both (6) and (7): to (6) it is related by the absence of a resumptive pro¬
noun ('äHd) in the xa&ar coreferring vnth the mubtada'; to (7) it is relat¬
ed by the fact that in both cases the xabar position is filled by a full
clause. As we have seen (p. 7 above), these principles hold in the
medieval theory of d.S. not only for sentences like (5) but also for such
cases where a non-referential pronoun that is attached to 'inna (or one
of its "sisters"), a fi'l qalbi, or otherwise incorporated in an auxiliary
verb — is then followed by a full clause. To quote Ibn Ya'iS:
wa-yaji'u hädä l-damiru ma'a l-'awämili l-däxilati 'alä l-mubtada'i wa-
l-xabari naJiwa 'inna wa-'axawätihä wa-zanardu wa-'axawätihä wa-käna
wa-'axawätihä (Ibn Ya'iS III, 114, 22) — This pronoun is construed with
those operators which enter [into constructions of] mubtada' and xabar,
[operators] like 'inna wa-'axawätuhä, zanantu wa-' axawätuhä and käna
wa-'axawätuhä.
However, it has already been indicated (p. 3 above) that the medi¬
eval Arab grammarians recognized that there are cases where the tafsir
for a non-referential pronoun consists of one word (mufrad) rather than
a full clause. In Sibawayhi's al-Kitäb (25811.) one can find a
detailed discussion of constructions like rubbahu rajulan ('many a
man'), where -hu in rubbahu is presented as an anticipatory pronoun
whose position is not available for a specific referential noun (muzha¬
run). Therefore, the argument goes, unlike an anaphor, it caimot occupy
a sentence-final position but rather requires exponence (tafsir), a func¬
tion that is implemented, in this case, by the accusatival noun
rajulan.^^ What Sibawayhi and other medieval grammarians, however,
Cf Ibn Ya'iä 111, 118, where -huin mbhahuie, presented as a nakiratunmub- hamatun, i.e. an indefinite unspeeific element whose 'exponent' rajulan ib ana¬
logous to dirhaman which 'expounds' the unspeeific numeral in 'iSrüna dirharruin
10 YisHAi Peled
failed to note is that the construction of a non-referential pronoun fol¬
lowed by a one-word tafsir is not restricted to cases exhibiting words
like rubba, hasbu and ni'ma with a following tamyiz. As we shall see
below, there are cases of non-referential pronouns in mw6<a(ia'position
where the xabar position is filled by a noun phrase rather than by a full
clause. This missing link in the medieval theory of non-referential pro¬
nouns could, as 1 hope to show in the present paper, shed some more
light on the structures discussed so far, as well as on related structures
in modem literary Arabic.
Let us first consider the following sentence:
(8) mä käna taxalluß 'anBadrin wa-'anä 'azunnu 'annaka talqä 'aduw-
wan wa-ldkinni zanantu 'annahä I-iru wa-law zanantu 'annahu
'aduwwun mä taxallaftu (Wäqidi, 116, 20) — When I stayed behind
and did not attend the battle of Badr 1 did not believe that you were
facing an enemy; rather, I thought that it was the caravan. Had I
thought it was an enemy [that you were after] I would not have
stayed behind.
Clearly, neither -hä nor -hu in 'annahä l-'ini and 'annahu 'aduummn
respectively corefers with any of the preceding nouns. However, each of
the two pronouns, occupying as it is a topic position, exhibits gender-
munber agreement with the following noun occupying the comment
position. In other words, the pronouns in question are linked up each to
the noun following it by grammatical agreement. Yet, they do not r e f e r
to these nouns. Indeed, these are non-referential pronouns which could
be replaced by no specific noun that could be assigned a full-topic func¬
tion; it is only by such generic nouns as (aJl-Sa'na or (a)l-amra that
these pronouns are perhaps substitutable. This leads to the conclusion
that the pronouns fannajhä and fannajhu in (8) fill a purely syntactical
function.'' They occupy the 'ism 'anna slot ordy to satisfy the structural
requirements of 'anna for two syntactic units occupying topic and com-
('twenty dirhems'). Cf also Fleischer, 419 and Weight 11, 214f , who also
indicates that some grammarians allow for gender-number agreement between
the pronoun attached to ntbba and the following accusatival noun (rubhahd
-mra'atan etc.) . For a related structure, cf yd lahu min rajulin ('0, what a man he is' — Weight 11, 153), where the non-referential -hu is 'expounded' by the pre¬
positional phrase min rajulin thai, is substitutable by an accusatival tamyiz (raju¬
lan).
For a detaUed discussion of the distinction between syntactically function¬
ing and referentially occurring pronouns, see Bosch, 32 ff.
ment positions. Thus, l-'iru and 'aduwwun not only fill comment posi¬
tions but also function as fiül comments, in that they represent the new
information conveyed by their respective 'awwa-clauses. The pronouns
fannajhä and fannajhu, by contrast, while occupying a topic slot, fill
what 1 would like to describe as a pro-topic function.
Nominal sentences with a non-referential pronoun in pro-topic func¬
tion on one hand, and a noun phrase filling the position of and function¬
ing as full comment on the other — seem to be fairly common in
modem literary Arabic. Most of the cases attested are 'mm-sentences:
(9) 'innahu la-sirrun 'ajibun (Nu'ayma [1967], 47, 8) — That is a
wonderful secret.
(10) 'innahä l-marratu l-'ülä -llati 'an'amu ßhä bi-jawwin hädi'in (Tay-
mür [1951], 39, 13) — This is the first time I enjoy a peaceful
atmosphere.
(11) wa-'anä ka-dälika, 'idä bi-'anwärin tataharraku min-a l-qaryati
nahwi — wa-tataharraku bi-sur'atin. 'innahum, lä äakka, qawmun
'amdaw sahratahumfi hädihi l-qaryati (Nu'ayma [1967], 109,18) —
While 1 was like that, 1 suddeidy saw lights moving, and moving
fast, from the village in my direction. These must be people who
had spent the evening in this village.
In the following two sentences the pro-topic is a separate pronoun in
sentence-initial position:
(12) 'al-tawbata, 'al-tawbata, yd rabbi, hiya l-marratu l-'ülä wa-l-'axiratu
(Nu'ayma [1967], 38, 8) - Penance, 0 my God. This is the first
and last time.
(13) 'anta ß l-mustaSJä . . . hiya 'ayyämun qalä'ilu taqdihä hunä (Tay-
mür [1951], 72, 9) — You are in hospital . . . You will stay here
a few days.
Of special interest are sentences (14) and (15) below, where the pro-
topic is a clitic attached to 'ayyu and the verbal form nufaddHu respecti¬
vely:
(14) 'ayyuhumä 'ahaqqu bi-l-zahrati: "'älimun' yuSarrihuhä . . . 'am
"jähilun" lä ya'rifu hattä . . . (Nu'ayma [1966], 126, 8) — Who of the two is worthier of the flower: an "expert" who cuts it in slices ... or an "illiterate" who does not even know . . .
(15) nahnu dä 'iman nufaddiluhä muhädatätin mu^laqatan bayna rajulay-
ni -tnayni lä tälita ma'ahumä (Haykal, 251, 5) — We always prefer
it secret talks between two persons with no third one attending.
12 YiSHAi Peled
In (14) the comment position is filled by the comparative 'ahaqqu that
is uninflected for number and gender. The pronoun -humä that is atta¬
ched in the topic position to 'ayyu is expounded by an epexegetical
apposition ('älimun . . . 'am jähilun) with which it agrees in number and
gender. In (15) nufaddilu fiinctions rather unusually as a di-transitive
verb where the position of the second direct object is occupied by a noun
phrase (contaiidng a clausal complement) , while the position of the first
direct object is occupied by the non-referential pronoun -hä which dis¬
plays grammatical agreement with muhadatät. In analogy to regular
cases of di-transitive verbs, the relationship between -hä and muhädatät
can be presented as a pro-topic: comment relationship (cf. the 'afäl al-
qulüb cases (1) and (2), p. 7 above, where the position of the second
direct object is occupied by a full clause rather than by a noun phrase) .
4. The Construction: Pronoun -I- Definite Noun Phrase -I-
Indefinite Noun Phrase
Sentences (9)-(15) above have been described as displaying the
structure: pro-topic -I- phrasal comment. The noun functioning as head
of the comment was indefinite in the majority of the examples recorded.
However, in nominal sentences in Arabic the comment position is not
rarely occupied by a definite noun, as is the case, for example, in (10)
and (12) above. In other words, the structure pro-topic 4- phrasal com¬
ment can be assigned not only to sentences like:
(16) 'innahu la-sirmn — That is a secret (cf. (9) above),
but also to sentences like:
(16a) 'innahu l-sirru — That is the secret.
Moreover, the adjective 'ajibunm&y be construed not only with sirrun
to yield:
(9) 'innahu la-sirrun 'ajibun, but also with l-simi, to yield:
(16b) 'innahu l-sirru 'ajibun.
The difference between the two last sentences, however, is that
whereas in (9) 'ajibun functions as an attribute to sirrun, in (16b) l-sirru
and 'ajibun display a topic-comment relationship. In other words, while
in (9) the pro-topic is followed by a phrasal comment in sentence-final
position, in (16b) l-sirru occurs in sentence-medial position and func-
tions as comment to the pro-topic -hu and at the same time as full topic
to he comment 'ajibun. This type of sentence is apparently realized by a
syntactical cordlation of two clauses. (16b), for example, is realized by
the conflation of 'innahu l-sirru with 'al-sirru 'ajibun.
Admittedly, the construction exemplified by (16b) is distinctly rare in
classical Arabic, and in the modem Arabic material that was examined
for the present work it was not attested at all. Yet, it is not inadmissible.
The sentence stmcture at issue has been dealt with by a number of
modem scholars who unfortunately applied to it the medieval analysis
of huwa -llahu 'ahadun (pp. 5-6 above) whereby huwa is assigned the
function of d.S.'" As we have seen, the medieval Arab grammarians con¬
ceived of d.ä. as a non-referential pre-clause pronoun. But in cases like
huwa -llahu 'ahadun the pronoun huwa cannot be accounted for just by
applying to it the t«rm d.ä. in the sense of damir al-jumla (p. 8 above,
and cf Ambros, 224). The function of huwa remains unexplained.
Indeed, as we have seen (pp. 5-6 above), some of the Qur 'än commen¬
tators regarded -llahu and not -llahu 'ahadun as the xabar of huwa. But
then the problem was how to define the syntactic position of 'ahadun. As
was indicated, 'ahadun cannot be regarded as an appositive to -llahu
(p. 6 above). Some of the commentators labelled 'ahadun as xabar tä¬
nin (analysis (c), p. 5 above); but, as we have seen, they did not spe¬
cify the exact meaning of xabar tänin in terms of the syntactic relations
obtaining within this particular sentence.
See, e. g., Reckendorf (1921), 376, who quotes from classical poetry the sentence hiya l-dunyä qurüdun which he translates: 'ja, die Welt ist ein Dar¬
lehen', hiya in thi.s sentence is wrongly interpreted by Reckendorf as d.ä.
functioning as an isolated natural subject (ef p. 7 above). MoRsi and Kos
(382-3) adduce the following sentences to exemplify the construction in ques¬
tion: huwa l-qadaru gadämfnj, hiya l-wardatu jamilatujn] , hiya l-tvurüdu jamila- tu[n], 'innahu l-mu'allimu qä'imufn] and 'innahä l-qanä'atu ginajnj. Like the medieval Arab grammarians, they regard the pronoun in each of these sentences as d.ä. functioning as a (non-referential) subject to the following clause. Morsi and Kos follow the medieval Arab grammarians also in claiming that sentences
like those adduced by them are emphatic, and that the pronoun functioning as
subject "erhält durch das Prädikat (Substantiv und Adjektiv) seinen Sinn" (ef pp. 4-5 above). Their analysis of the above sentences is matched by the follow¬
ing respective renderings: 'Er: das Schicksal (ist) unbeständig'; 'Sie: die Rosen (sind [sie]) wunderschön'; 'Sie: die Blumen (sind) wunderschön'; 'Siehe es, der Lehrer steht'; 'Siehe es, die Zufriedenheit (ist) ein Reichtum'.
For the construction: clitic (-hu) + separate pronoun ('anäj + definite noun phrase, see Qur'än XXVII, 9 and n. 7 above. For a thorough and most enlighten¬
ing discussion of some related presentative structures, see Bloch, chapter IV, esp. 96 f
14 YisHAi Peled
In the light of our discussion of (1 6b) it seems that we have now come
to a point where we can offer an analysis to huwa -llahu 'ahadun that will
account for the function xabar tänin which was assigned to 'ahadun:
primary clause
I 1
pro-t comment /
I 1 I 1
(D) huwa I -llahu | , 'ahadun ,
^ topic comment ^
secondary clause
Analysis (D) suggests that huwa -llahu 'ahadunis realized by a cordla¬
tion oftwo clauses representing two propositions: (a) 'That is Allah' and
(b) 'Allah is one'. This falls into line with the argument of those exegetes
who describe the verse as an answer given by the Prophet to the poly¬
theists who asked him to characterize his God {^if land rabbaka— see,
e.g., Zamaxäari, 298; and cf. n. 8). The two propositions (a) and (b),
which provide the two basic features of Muhammad's God, are mapped
into one sentence where the word 'alläh occurs only once but has a two¬
fold function: a comment to huwa and a topic to 'ahadun. 'ahadun thus
functions as a secondary comment in the sentence, or rather as a
comment in the secondary clause where -llahu functions as topic. This,
then, is the essence of the medieval concept xabar tänin.^^ Once again
we must point to the different functions of huwa and -llahu in the pri¬
mary clause and the secondary clause respectively: huwa is a pro-topic;
that is, it is a non-referential pronoun irreplaceable by any referential
nominal (i.e. noun/pronoun). Its function is to fill the topic slot in the
primary clause so as to create a comment position readily available for
-Ilähu. It is this pro-topic status of huwa which allows the option of a
secondary clause in which the comment of the primary clause (in our
case -Ilähu) functions as full topic (two fiül topics are normally admis-
Significantly, the term mubtada' tänin is quite regularly used by the medie¬
val Arab grammarians to designate the mubtada' of a secondary nominal clause (jumla ?ugrä) functioning as xabar in a jumla 'ismiyya kubrd :
mubtada' jrabar
I 1 I \ I
mubtada' tanin xabar
I 1 I— ;— I
Zaydun 'abühu qä'imun — Zayd, his father is standing. For
discussion, see, e.g., Ibn Ya'iS I, 89, 3.
sible only in cases of extraposition of the kind specified in n. 15). -Ilähu
and 'ahadun thus function as two comments, the one representing the
new information within the primary clause huwa -llahu, whereas the
other represents the new information within the secondary clause —
-Uähu 'ahadun. The full-topic function is filled by one noun ordy — llahu.
5. The Construction: Pronoun -I- Definite Noun Phrase -1-
Verb Phrase
At this stage of our discussion two points should be recalled: (a) that
the secondary-clause position in pro-topic cases is not obligatorily fil¬
led; in section 3 we saw cases where the pro-topic is followed by a phra¬
sal comment in sentence-final position, (b) that in those pro-topic cases
which do exhibit a double-clause structure the position of the secondary
comment is ordy very rarely filled by a noun like in huwa -Ilähu 'ahadun.
However, while the sentence structure: pronoun -I- definite noun phrase
+ indefinite noun phrase is oidy rarely attested, one can easily find, in
modem literary Arabic, elaborated pro-topic stmctures which are like¬
wise subject to a double-clause analysis. Consider first the sentence-
type: pronoun -H defirdte noun-phrase -I- verb phrase, as illustrated by
the following examples:
(17) hiya l-taqälidu l-madaniyyatu daxxamat-i l-madärisa fi 'ab^äri
l-näsi (Nu'ayma [1966], 126, 12) — It is civilizational conventions;
civilizational conventions enhanced the schools in the eyes of the
people.
(18) la-qad hazarti. 'innahu difsi yä habibati haramani l-naumia
(Nu'ayma [1967], 102, 3) — Yes, you guessed. It's my molar tooth,
darling; my molar tooth denied me sleep.
(19) huwa makäni 'a$na'u fihi mä Si'lu "' — It's my place; [in my place]
I will do as I please.
" Sentence (19) is quoted from M. S. al-Räfi'i: Wahy al-qalam. Vol. Ill, 6, 5, in Cantarino, 429. makäni in this sentence functions as the isolated natural sub¬
ject whose predicate is the clause 'a^na'u fihi mä Si'tu. In all other respects (19) represents the same structure type as (17) and (18). Cantarino' s classification of the sentence types at issue is rather different from mine, hence his slightly dif¬
ferent translation of this particular sentence.
For more sentences exemplifjdng the structure of (17)-(19), see Cantarino, 430, 5; 431, 10, 11. For a classical example, see Qur'än, Xll, 23, and ef Bebs- TON (1974), 62, n. 60 for two different interpretations offered by the commenta¬
tors.
16 YisHAi Peled
In their contexts, sentences (17)-(19), as well as (20) and (21) below,
are clearly emphatic; yet, it would be inaccurate to describe e.g. (17)
merely as an emphatic variant of:
(17a) 'cU-taqalidu l-madaniyyatu (jkixxamat-i l-madärisa}^
In (1 7a) 'al-taqälidu l-madaniyyatu can be assigned only one function:
topic to daxxamat-i l-madärisa. But in the context of (17) l-taqälidu l-
madaniyyatu is clearly presented as part of the new information provi¬
ded by the sentence and must, therefore, be assigned a comment func¬
tion. Clearly, it is the non-referential pronoun Ätya filling, as it is, a pro-
topic function that creates a comment position in (17) for l-taqälidu l-
madaniyyatu, which also fills the function of topic to daxxamat-i l-madä¬
risa, as is illustrated by:
primary clause
I 1
pro-topic comment
I 1 I 1
(17b) hiya l-taqälidu l-madaniyyatu daxxamat-i l-madärisa
I I I 1
topic comment
I I
secondary clause
In all the examples considered so far the pro-topic exhibited number-
gender agreement with the following noun phrase functioning as com¬
ment in the primary clause. In the following case, where the comment
in the primary clause consists of two coordinated nouns, it is only the
secondary comment that takes the dual form (yadfa'äni); the pro-topic
displays a masculine singidar form (huwa), in clear disagreement with
the primary comment:
(20) huwa l-jü'u wa-taw'amuhu l-atSu yadfa'äni bind 'abadan Hid l-sa'yi
wa-l-harakati (Nu'ayma [1968], 30, 9) — It is hunger and its twin,
thirst; these two always drive us to endeavour, and set us in
niotion.
The position of the comment in the secondary clause may occasio¬
nally be filled by an independent relative clause. In such cases, as in
regular nominal sentences, where the subject and predicate are both
" See, e.g., Moesi and Kos,383, and cf Ibn Ya'iS as quoted on pp. 4-5
above.
definite, a pronominal copiüa is inserted between the topic and the
(secondary) comment. In the resulting structure there are thus two pro¬
nouns linking up to the topic on both sides of it, both implementing a
purely syntactical function: the pro-topic on the left and the copula on
the right. This is illustrated by (21) below, where both -hä in läkinnahä
and the pronominal copula hiya link up to ta^avnvuräti wa-axyilati:
primary clause
pro-topic I— I (21) wa-lakinnahä
comment
I 1
ta^awwuräti wa-axyilati
I I
topic
hiya -llati häkat
hawlahä J
copula comment
secondary clause
tilka l-alfäfa min ddlika l-ta'aqqudi wa-1-gumüdi (Taymür (1951), 30,2)
— But it is my fantasies and imagination; it is my fantasies and imagina¬
tion that created around her those thickets of complexity and mystery.
One might argue that the sentences discussed in this section, and in
particidar (21), where the secondary comment is relativized, represent
a special type of cleft sentence." Indeed, relativization of the secondary
comment is admissible also in (17), (18) and perhaps even in (20). Con¬
sider, e.g.,
(17c). hiya l-taqälidu l-madaniyyatu -llati daxxamat-i l-madärisa.
However, in (19) relativization of the secondary comment is inadmis¬
sible; (19) is not paraphrasable by:
(19a) huwa makäni -lladi 'asna'u fihi mä Si'tu — It is my place where I
do as I please,
" In cases where the pro-topic position is occupied by a separate pronoun the pronominal copula is inadmissible: *wa-hiya ta^awtvuräti wa- 'axyilati hiya -llati häkat hawlahä tilka l-alfäfa . . .
" For a detaUed discussion of various types of cleft sentence in Arabic and other languages, see, e. g. , Bravmann, 52 ff. Goldenberg deals with a related structure which he describes as an 'imperfectly transformed cleft sentence'. In his discussion of some Arabic examples he contrasts the sentence mädä -lladi
^ana'ta? ('what is it that you have done?') with mädä §ana'ta? ('what have you done?') and shows that whereas the former is realized by a regular cleft transfor¬
mation, the latter is an imperfectly transformed cleft sentence.
2 ZDMG 140/1
18 YiSHAi Peled
where huwa might be interpreted as a referential pronoun filling a fidl-
topic function and followed by a comment consisting of a head-noun
(makäni) that is modified by a relative clause.
6. The Nominalized Secondary Comment
In another elaborated pro-topic structure, that is similarly subject to a
double-clause analysis, the secondary comment position is typically
occupied by an (extraposed) nominalized 'anfTio)-clause.^" Consider
first the following examples where the fidl-topic position is, like in the
previous construction, occupied by a definite noun phrase:
(22) qui huwa sü'u l-muqädafati 'an yazhara sirrunä li-l-maliki^^ —
[Rather] say it was unfortunate that our secret became known to
the king.
(23) mä hiya hi-1-mv^ädafati l-'amyä'i 'an yattafiqa l-näsu . . . (Nu'ayma
[1968], 38, 8) —It is not just a blind coincidence that people agree
(24) mä hiya l-nakbatu 'an tanhära binäyatun 'alä 'arba'ina min-a l-näsi
. . . bal hiya l-nakbatu 'an nard fi maSi'ati l-haydti nakbatan
(Nu'ayma [1966], 91, 13) - That a building should fall down on
forty people is not a catastrophe; rather, a catastrophe is to regard the will for life as a catastrophe.
(25) 'a-huwa l-'ilmu 'an tatalä'aba bi-l-'arqämi . . . 'am huwa l-'ilmu 'an
tumayyiza bayna l-mubtada'i wa-l-xabaril (Nu'ayma [1966], 125,
15) — Is this scholarship to play with numbers ... or is that
scholarship, to be able to distinguish between subject and pre¬
dicate?
Sentences (23) -(25) exhibit two features which seem to be peculiar to
the construction under discussion: 1. the negative particle wiä immedia¬
tely preceding the pro-topic (in [23] and the first sentence in [24]). 2. a
stressed pro-topic (in [24] and [25]).
To a certain extent, this type of sentence can be related to English sen¬
tences like It's a pity to make a fool of yourself, which are usually described in English grammars as cases of extraposition of a clausal subject. The subject in such cases is said to be "postponed" to the rear of the sentence and its "normal"
position before the verb filled by a substitute form (it). For discussion, see, e. g.,
Quirk et al., 963f, and cf Beeston (1970), 41.
Sentence (22) is quoted (and translated) from Tawfiq al-Hakim's 'AM al-
kahf hy Cantarino, 430. The structure of this sentence is apparently modelled
on the Qur'änic formula qui huwa; for discussion, see Rubin, 198.
In other cases, the full-topic position is occupied by an indefinite noun
phrase or by a generic prepositional phrase. Sentences of this kind are
usually introduced by Hnna and the topic is typically introduced by the
particle la-. In the following sentences the fulU-topic position is occu¬
pied by an indefirdte noun phrase:
(26) 'ajal 'innahä la-'uhjiyyatun 'an tafyila bayna l-hayäti wa-l-mawti
wa-humä mutta^iläni -tti^äla l-nahäri bi-l-layli (Nu'ayma [1966],
88,13) — Yes, it is puzzling that you should separate death from life
while the two are joined together like day and night.
(27) wa-'innahä la-mufäja'atun wafaniyyatun rä'Vatun 'an yaktaSifa
l-lubnäniyyüna ra'isan gayra 'ädiyyin . . . (al-Hawädit, 19) — It is
a marvellous national surprise for the Lebanese to discover an
unusual president . . .
(28) 'a-huwa nmatahilun 'an nattafiqa yawman?^^ — Is it impossible for
us ever to agree?
The assigiunent of a topic function to an indefinite noun in sentence-
medial position may look rather awkward. Yet, one must posit some
pragmatico-syntactic relationship not only between the indefinite noun
and the preceding pronoun, but also between that same noun and the
following nominalized clause. In (26), for instance, the (pro)-topic-com¬
ment relationship between -hä and la-'uhjiyyatun hardly needs any jus¬
tification, particularly in view of the particle la- that is preposed to
'uhjiyyatun. Now, being indefinite, la-'uhjiyyatun can hardly be envis¬
aged as occupying sentence-initial position with a full-topic function
(*la-'uhjiyyatun 'an taf^ila). However, as a comment to the non-referen¬
tial finnajhä it constitutes a topic for 'an taf§ila which clearly carries
the new irdbrmation in the secondary clause:^'
" This sentence is quoted (and translated) from Tawliq al-IJakim's Sulaymän
al-hakim by Cantarino, 430.
Note, however, that a distinction should be drawn between our cases which are subject to a double-clause analysis and others which are not, like 'innahä maridatun hä4ihi l-fatätu {' Abd al-Quddüs, 29, 11 — 'she is sick, this girl') . In this sentence the pronoun ('innajhä is not a pro-topic, but rather a full topic (to mari-
<}atun) referring to the heroine of the story who is repeatedly mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, hädihi l-fatätu thus functions as an epexegetic appositive to finnajhä. Being definite, it would, in any case, be inappropriate to assign hä¬
dihi l-fatätu the function of comment to the indefinite marvjatun. For a discus¬
sion of related structures in Arabic and some other languages, see Bloch, Sö¬
gt.
2*
20 YisHAi Peled
primary clause
{26a)
pro-t I— I
'innahä la-'uhjiyyatnn comment
'an tafsila bayna l-hayäti wa-l-mawti
topic comment
secondary clause
Now consider the following sentences, where the full-topic position is
occupied by a generic prepositional phrase:
(29) wa-'innahu la-min-a l-xatali wa-l-'ijhäfi wa-l-jawri 'an nufä^Ha mä
bayna l-'umami (Nu'ayma [1968], 164, 10) — It is pretentious,
unjust and unfair to compare between nations in order to deter¬
mine which deserves preference.
(30) 'innahu la-min-a l-mu'sifi haqqan 'anna l-'insäniyyata bi-majmüHhä
mä ta'allamat . . . (Nu'ayma [1968], 173, 9) — It is really sad that
mankind as a whole has not [yet] learnt . . .
In sentences like (29)-(30), where the fidl-topic position is occupied
by a prepositional phrase rather than by a noun phrase, munber-gender
agreement between the pro-topic and the primary comment becomes
irrelevant, and, indeed, the pronoun attached to 'inna is invariably -hu.
Furthermore, sentences of this kind bring us very close to the d.S.-struc-
tm-e as it is typically presented in modem grammars of Arabic (sec¬
tion 7). While the double-clause analysis is still applicable:
(29a) 'innahu la-min-a l-.ratali ... 'an nufädHa mä bayna l-'umami,
primary clause
pro-t I— I
comment
topic comment
secondary clause
it can be argued that sentences of this type are subject also to the follo¬
wing analysis:
pro-t (clausal) comment
I— I I 1
to[)ic connnent
I 1 I 1
(29b) 'innahu la-min-a l-xafali . . . 'an nufädHa mä bayna l-'umami
or, rather more traditionally, to:
d.g.
mubtada' xabar
I— I I 1
xabar tiiuqaddaitr' mubtada' »ni'axxar
I 1 I 1
(29c) 'innahu la-min-a l-xatali . . . 'an nufddUa mä bayna l-'umami
Urdike (29a), which posits a conflation oftwo clauses, both (29b) and
(29c) present a single-clause analysis whereby the non-referential
pronoun finnajhu is followed by a full clause with comment (or xabar)
function. This clause, as can be seen, is then subject to further internal
analysis into topic and comment (or xabar muqaddam and mubtada'
mu'axxar).
Similarly, the following sentence, in which the position of the nomina¬
lized clause is occupied by a noun, is subject to a double-clause- as well
as to a single-clause-analysis:
(31) wa-'innahu la-min-a l-'in§äfi li-'Ummi Nu'mäna l-qawlu 'innahä
. . . (Nu'ayma [1966a], 64, 6) — It would be fair to say that 'Umm
Nu'män . . .
7. The Modern Concept of d.ä.
We have already indicated that many of the sentences that were used
by the medieval Arab grammarians to exemplify what they designated
as d.§. — are unacceptable, or at least rarely attested, in modem literary
Arabic (e.g. käna Zaydun qä'imun, huwa Zaydun muntaliqun etc.).
Towards the end of the previous section we looked at a sentence stmc¬
ture in which the pronoun occupying the pro-topic position can be in¬
terpreted as d.s. in the modem sense of the term. In modem grammars
In medieval Arabic grammatical theory, if a sentence consists of a preposi¬
tional/adverbial phrase + a noun phrase, it is the prepositional/adverbial
phrase that is regularly labelled as xabar, irrespective of its thematic value in the sentence; for discussion, see Beeston (1970), 68-70.
22 YiSHAi Peled
of Arabic, (J.S. is regularly associated with 'intia wa-'axawätuhä. It is
usually presented as an invariable pronoun -hu that is attached to 'inna
or one of its "sisters" with no reference to any specific noun either
preceding or following it. Rather, d-S. is said to be followed by a
sequence of at least one full clause, and to represent the content (al-
Sa'n) of that/those clau8e(8) as a whole (see, e.g., Cantarino, 430-1;
Wright I, 285, 293; Fischer, 158; and cf. the concept of damir al-
jumla, p. 8 above). This, however, does not mean that the presenta¬
tion of d.§. is wholly identical in all modem grammars 6f Arabic. Can¬
tarino (430-1, n. 79), for instance, claims that the d.S.-constmction is
"a product of syntactical contamination caused by its frequent use in
certain positions". For illustration he uses the sentence 'a'taqidu
'annahu Zaydun qä'imun ('I think that Zayd is standing') which he pre¬
sents as realized by the contamination of 'aHaqidu 'anna Zaydan qä'i¬
mun with 'aHaqidu 'annahu qä'imun. Cantarino, moreover, claims that
"this would explain the fact that instances of the 'pronoun of general
reference' are only found after the particles 'inna, 'anna and läkinna".
However, Cantarino does not elaborate on his proposed contamina¬
tion, and in any case the constmction that he uses to illustrate the con¬
tamination ( 'aHaqidu 'annahu Zaydun qä'imun) does not feature in the
examples of d.ä. which he adduces from modem Arabic prose. (For this
kind of stmcture, see section 4 above) . Wright (II, 81) views the func¬
tion of d.ä. as identical to that of mä al-käffa (e.g. in 'innamä, ka-'anna-
mäetc.). Blachäre (383) presents d-S- as ''nettementpl6ona8tique . . .
parce qu'd annoncerait non le sujet, mais toute la proposition qui suit".
In many of the sentences adduced in modem grammars of Arabic to
exemplify d.8., -hu is immediately followed by a verb phrase heading a
verbal clause. Yet, even among these examples borderline cases can be
found where the sentence allows for both single- and double-clause ana¬
lysis. This is particidarly noticeable in cases like the following, where
the particle la- is preposed to the verb whose subject is a nominalized
clause:
(32a) Single-clause analysis:
d.s. predicate nominalized subject clause
I— I I 1 I 1
'innahu la-yamna'uni 'an 'uhadditakum 'anna l-nabiyya qala . . .^^
haditan katiran
^' This sentence is quoted from Buxäri in Reckendorf (1898), 806. For a
similar example, see Reckendorf (1921), 396 (lakinnahu yamna' uni min-a l-
xurüji 'Haykum 'anna ramla -Ilähi . . .).
— What prevents me from giving you a detailed report is that the Proph¬
et had said . . .
(32b) Double-clause analysis:
primary clause
I 1
pro-t eonunent
I 1 I 1
'innahu la-yamna'uni 'an 'uhadditakum 'anna l-nabiyya qala . . .
haditan katiran
I . I I I
topie comment
I . 1
secondary clause
In general, however, it is sentences like (33)-(36) below that are com¬
moidy used in modem grammars of Arabic to exemplify the use of d.ä.:
(33) wa-lä Sakka 'annahu tüjadu fi'ätun kabiratun min-a l-näsi . . .
targabu ß hädä l-naw'i min-a l-hayäti (Sämiyya, 113, 3) — Un¬
doubtedly, there are large groups of people . . . who have a desire
for this kind of life.
(34) li-hädä fa-innahu fi l-'Iräqi ka-mä fi Süriya lam tuwazza'-i l-'arädi
. . . 'alä l-fallähina (Sämiyya, 111, 21) — Therefore, in Iraq, as
well as in Syria, the lands . . . were not distributed among the
peasants.
(35) wa-1-Suyü'iyyatu l-dawliyyatu ta'rifu 'annahu lä budda li-hädihi
l-'anzimati l-Suyü'iyyati l-mahalliyyati min-a l-i-ndimäji . ■ ■ fi
l-tayyäri l-Suyü'iyyi l-'ämmi (Sämiyya, 67, 4) — Intemational
communism knows that these regimes of local communism are
bound to be absorbed by mainstream communism.
(36) bal 'innahu law 'utiha li-l-'insäni l-sultänu l-kämilu 'alä l-'ardi
la-mä käna ma'a dälika hurran (Nu'ayma [1968], 177, 5) — More¬
over, [even] if man had been given full control over the world,
this would not have made him free.
Clearly, no conflation can be posited in cases like (33)-(36) which
only allow for a single-clause analysis: pro-topic -I- clausal/sentential
comment. The pro-topic function is fdled in all four sentences by the
invariable clitic -hu^^ which makes the comment position available for
For the loss of uiflection in cases related to that of d.ä. , including the case of the copula, see Bloch, 70-73, and ef. n. 7 above.
24 YisHAi Peled
such constructions that are inadmissible in those 'mm-sentences where
the topic position is filled by a fully referential nominal. Thus, in the
case of (33) the context requires that 'anna, which is triggered off by lä
Sakka, be followed by a verbal clause. But 'anna requires a Topic + Com¬
ment clause type, and cannot be immediately followed by a verb. So it is
the invariable clitic -hu that fills the topic position (assuming a pro-top¬
ic function) thus making the comment position available for a verbal
clause which in this particular case displays a feminine subject noun.^'
In (34) the comment position is filled by a verbal clause with an adver¬
bial (ß l-'Iräqi ka-mä ß Süriya) in frontal position. In (35) fannajhu is
followed by a clause introduced by lä al-näfiya li-l-jins, and in (36)
(innajhu is followed by a full tow-conditional-sentence.
As for the modem use of d-ä- as a pro-topic in non-'mna-sentences,
only one case was recorded where a non-referential -hu is attached to
the verb inanna, thus filling the position of the first direct object. The
position of the second direct object, which stands to the first one as com¬
ment to topic, is filled by a verbal clause:
(37) lä 'asfunnuhu baqiya 'amämanä . . . mafamin min-a l-i-'tiräß bi-
'anna . . . (Haykal, 163, 1) — I do not see any altemative left to
us . . . but to admit that . . .
Finally, I have already indicated (p. 21 above) that sentences like
käna Zaydun qä'imun are unacceptable in modern literary Arabic.
However, the stmcture displayed by käna yaqümu Zaydun seems to be
very common, especially with the auxiliaries käna, käda, and lam ya'ud.
Consider the following sentences:
(38) la-qad waqa'a mä känat taxSähu l-wälidatu (Nu'ayma [1967], 70,
3) — What the mother feared most happened.
(39) kädat tafütuni l-fur^atu (Taymür [1963], 93, 2) — I almost missed
the opportunity.
(40) fa-lam ya'ud ya'manu l-muwäfinu 'alä mälihi (^kmiyy&, 135, 17) —
A citizen could no longer feel safe about his money.
As can be seen, in (38)-(40) the auxiliary introduces a verbal rather
than a nominal clause. This can be easily accounted for if we posit a
non-referential pronominal element incorporated in the auxiliary verb.
Thus, rather than looking for 'ism and xabar'm cases like (38) -(40) they
" Cf Beeston (1970), 41. In cases where the subject noun is masculine, it
might be interpreted as coreferential with the clitic finnajhu (see, e.g.,
Reckendorf [1898], 805).
should be envisaged as analogous to (33)-(37), where an overt invari¬
able -hu filling a pro-topic function is attached to Hnna/sfanna. (40), for
example, should be analysed as:
aux -i- pro-t comment
(d.§.) '
I 1
predicate subject
I 1 I 1
(40a) fa-lam ya'ud ya'manu l-muwdtinu 'aid mälihi
Note, however, that unlike (33)-(37), (38)-(40) display number-gen¬
der agreement between the pro-topic incorporated in the auxiliary and
the subject of the comment clause (e. g. känat and l-wälidatu in (38); but
see n. 11).
8. Summary
In the foregoing pages we concentrated upon a number of construc¬
tions in both classical and modem literary Arabic, all sharing a non-
referential pronoun in topic position (pro-topic). While recognizing the
fact that pronouns may be non-referential, the medieval Arab gramma¬
rians insisted that a pronoun must, by definition, link up to some ele¬
ment. They conceived of the non-referential pronoun as a special case of
'idmär qabla l-dikrA-'ism which requires exponence (tafsir), a function
that is implemented either by a phrase (as in rubbahu rajulan) or by a
fidl clause (as in Hnnahu 'amatu -Ilähi dahibatun). The latter case is
referred to in medieval Arabic grammatical theory as d-S. However,
most of the grammarians also regarded as d-S- the separate pronoun in
cases like huwa -Ilähu 'ahadun. As was indicated, this type of sentence is
realized by conflation of two clauses, and is thus subject to a double-
clause analysis, as illustrated by (D) (p. 14). The analysis of huwa
-llahu into pro-topic -l- (phrasal) comment, in the first place, is support¬
ed by sentences like (8) (p. 10), which the medieval grammarians (at
least those whom I consulted) failed to accommodate in their account of
non-referential pronouns. Furthermore, as was demonstrated in sec¬
tions 4-6, dealing with some elaborated stmctures in modem literary
Arabic, a pro-topic is quite commonly followed by a phrasal comment
agreeing with it in number and gender, that further functions as full top¬
ic to a secondary comment. By contrast, in typical cases of d.ä., the pro¬
noun is followed by a clausal comment and can thus be subject to a
26 YisHAi Peled
single-clause analysis only, with no grammatical agreement between
pro-topic and comment, as is demonstrated in section 7. However, like
all other pro-topic instances, d.h. is, in essence, a syntactical device
which creates a comment position (notably in Hnna/'anna-sentences)
by filling the topic position in such constructions where the latter is not
available for a referential nominal.
References
'Abd al-Quddüs, I. (n. d.). al-Nazzära l-sawdä'. Beirut: Där al-Qalam.
Ambros, A. A. (19S6). DieAnalysevonSure 112. In: Der Islam 63, pp. 219-247.
al-Baydäwi. (1968). 'Anwär al-tanzil wa- asrär al-ta'wil. Ed. H. 0. Fleischer.
Vol. II. Osnabrück: Biblio Verl.
Beeston, A. F. L. (1970). The Arabic Language Today. London: Hutchinson.
Beeston, A. F. L. (1974). Baidäwi's Commentary cm Sürah 12 of the Qur'än.
Oxford: The Clarendon Pr.
Bell, R. (1960). The Qur'än. Vol. II. Edinburgh: Clark.
Blachäre, R. and Gaudefroy-Demombynes, M. (1952). Grammaire de
l'arabe classique. Paris: G. P. Maisonneuve & Larose.
Bloch, A. A. (1986). Studies in Arabic Syntax and Semantics. Wiesbaden: Har¬
rassowitz.
Bosch, P. (1983). Agreement and Anaphora: A Study of theRole of Pronouns in
Syntax and Discourse. London: Acad. Pr.
Bravmann, M. M. (1953). Studies in Arabic and General Syntax. Le Caire: Impr.
de ITnst. Fran9ais d'Areh6ologie Orientale.
Calverley, E. E. (1957). The grammar of Süratu l-Ikhläs. In: SI 8, pp. 5-14.
Cantarino, V. (1975). Syntax of Modem Arabic Prose. Vol. 11. Bloomington:
Indiana Univ. Pr.
Fischer, W. (1972). Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch. Wiesbaden: Harrasso¬
witz.
Fleischer, H. L. (1885). Kleinere Schriften. Vol. I. Leipzig.
Goldenberg, G. (1977). Imperfectly-Transformed Cleft Sentences'. In: Procee¬
dings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Vol. 1, pp. 127-133.
al-Hawädit. Weekly. Beirut, 3. 12. 1982.
Haykal, M. H. (n.d.). Hadit al-mubädara. Beirut: Matba'at Bayrüt.
Ibn Ya'iä. (n.d.). Sarh al-mufa^^al. Parts I, 111. Beirut: 'Alam al-Kutub.
al-Jalälayn. (1968). al-Qur'än al-karim wa-bi-hämiSihi tafsir al-'imämayn al- Jalälayn. Beirut: Där al-'Arabiyya.
Morsi, M. and Kos, A. (1975). Die Funktionen des Personalpronomens im Arabi¬
schen. In: Zeitschrift für Phonetik 28, pp. 378-386.
Newby, G. D. (1973), Sürat al-'Ikhläß —A Reconsideration. In: Orient and Occi¬
dent. Essays presented to Cyrus H. Gordon cm the occasion of his sixty-fifth birth¬
day. Ed. Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. Neukirehen-Vluyn, pp. 127-130.
Nu'ajmia, M. (1966). Zdd al-ma'äd. Beirut: Dar Sader.
Nu'ayma, M. (1966a). 'Abü bafta. Beirut: Dar Sader.
Nu'ayma, M. (1967). 'Akäbir. Beirut: Dar Sader.
Nu'ayma, M. (1968). Sawt al-'älam. Dar Sader.
Peled, Y. (forthcoming). Cataphora and taqdir in Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory.
Quirk, R. et al. (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Long¬
man.
Reckendorf, H. (1898). Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen. Vol. IL Leiden: Brill.
Reckendorf, H. (1921). Arabische Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter.
Rubin, U. (1984). Al-Samad and the high God: An Interpretation of süra CXII. In:
Der Islam 61, pp. 197-217.
Sämijfya, J. (1965). Qadäyänä l-'arabiyya. Beirut: Där al-Rihäni.
Sibawayhi. (1881). al-Kitäb. Ed. H. Derenbourg. Vol. I. Paris: LTmpr. Natio¬
nale.
al-Tabari. (1954). Jämi' al-bayän 'an ta'wü 'äy al-qur'än. PartXXX. Cairo: Mus¬
tafa al-Bäbi.
Taymür, M. (1951). Kuli 'äm wa-'anium bi-xayr. Cairo: Maktabat al-'Adäb.
Taymür, M. (1963). Fir'aum al-^agir. Cairo: Där al-Qalam.
al-Wäqidi. (1966). Kitäb al-magäzi. Ed. Marsden Jones. Vol. I. London:
Oxford Univ. Pr.
Wright, W. (1955). ^ Grammar of the Arabic Language. Vols. I, II. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Pr.
al-Zajjäji. (1957). al-Jumal. Ed. M. Ben Cheneb. Paris: Klincksieck.
al-Zamaxäari. (1966). al-KaSSäf 'an haqä'iq al-tanzil. Vol. IV. Cairo: Mustafa al- Bäbi.
The Horoscope of as-Sahib Ibn 'Abbad*
By Oliver Kahl and Zeina Matar, Frankfurt
"He [Ibn 'Abbäd] always carried an
ephemeris (taqwim) with him, and he
could not help looking at it several
times a day. Indeed, he would not go
anywhere if he found something omi¬
nous (nahsan). He believed in it blind¬
ly, due to his total ignorance of astro¬
logy"-
Abü Haiyan at-Tauhidi: Matalib
81 = Ai^ 114
Throughout the medieval Islamic period, astrologers gave prognosti¬
cations on the fate of kingdoms and nations, as well as on the future of
specific cities and on the development of historical events. Moreover,
horoscopes were also cast for newly-born children, and an astrologer
was always present at the time of birth, ready to cast a horoscope and
predict an infant's future. This was common practice among kings,
viziers, secretaries, scholars and laymen. Although a great number of
these horoscopes did not survive in the available literature, some did,
and we are indeed fortunate to have the horoscope made at the birth of
the famous vizier and man-of-letters of the Büyid period, Abü l-Qäsim
Ismä'il Ibn 'Abbäd (326/938-385/995; see Cl. Cahen/Ch. Pellat:
Ibn 'Abbäd. In: EI^ 3/67 Iff.).
The horoscope is based on the following sources: a) Abü Haiyän at-
Tauhidi (d. after 400/1010): Matälib al-wazirain. Ed. Ibrähim al-Kai-
LÄNi. Dimaäq 1961, 89f [= Abü Haiyän'] resp. AJßäq al-wazirain. Ed.
Muhammad b. Täwit at-Tanöi. Dimaäq 1965, 126f [= Abü Haiyän^]
andb) Yäqütar-Rümi (d. 626/1229): IrSädal-aribiläma'rifatal-adibal-
ma'rüf bi-Mu'^am ai-udabä' au Tabaqät al-udabä'. Ed. D. S. Margo¬
liouth. 1-7. Leyden/London 1907-1927. (E. J. W. Gibb Memorial.
6,1-7.), 2/292 [= Yäqüt] (text identical vidth the Mu'^am al-udabä\ Ed.
A. F. RiFÄ'i. 1-20. Cairo 1355/1936-1357/1938, 6/208f).
* We are grateful to Prof Paul Kunitzsch, München, for his comments on
an earlier version of this paper.
