By Gideon Goldenbebg, Jerusalem
To Frithiof Rundgren
1 The basic notion of predication, common for the diverse sentence-
forms, was in Arab grammatical theory, as elsewhere, one ofthe funda¬
mental ideas. The clear exposition of predicative relation is not really
impaired by the different specific terms used for each of the sentence-
tj^es, viz. the nominal and the verbal. In Arab grammatical literature,
the treatment of'nexus' as such, in nominal and verbal sentences alike,
is by no means marginal, and, except for the most elementary works,
has not usually been neglected. The analysis of nexal relation in Arab
grammatical tradition, and the technical terms involved, have been
expounded afresh in some meticulous studies published recently,' but
the repeated criticism of the Arab grammarians as being unable to de¬
velop the generalized conceptions of subject and predicate may call for
some further comments.
Such criticism was first expressed by Weil: Verständnis. In his view,
the Muslim scholar, for whom the grammatical sentence was not the
expression of judgement as for the Greeks but a group of words which
makes sense, was unaware of the generalized conception of 'subject'
borrowed from formal logic, but distinguished between different kinds
of subjects, or rather nominatives, according to the forms of their predi¬
cates (v. especially ibid. 385ig.23).^ Some thirty years ago Henry
Fleisch: Verbe stated that the Arab grammarians by employing for
'nexus' the term 'isnäd had come near to a general theory of the sen-
' Suffice it to mention here Levin: Mmnad 151-164, Levin: Distinction (esp.
§ 1), al-Mayyäh: 'Isnäd (esp. ch. 1 "nm'nä l-'isnäd").
^ Weil: Verständnis presents Islamic science (including linguistics) as origi¬
nally based on an inductive principle opposite to the logical principle underlying
Greek thought. In his opinion Greek influence on Arabic grammatical termino¬
logy came late and was adapted to the conceptual framework of Islamic schol¬
arship (ibid. 38535-3863). It was Weil's idea that the development of Muslim
scientific thought from naql "tradition" to 'aql "reason" had given rise to the excessive rationalization characterizing Arabic linguistics.
40 Gideon Goldenbebg
tence without reaching it; that miisnad and mxisnad 'ilayhi remained
"terms of grammatical logic" for analysing the nexus, whereas mubtada'
— xabar and fä'il — fi'l were the only terms used in dealing with the
respective structures of nominal and verbal sentences. Fleisch then
suggested to generalize xabar for 'predicate', whether verbal (that
should be called xabar fi'li) or nominal {xabar ismi), and to make al-
muxbar 'anhu stand for 'subject'.^
As a matter of fact, not only musnad and musnad 'ilayhi, but also xabar
and muxbar 'anhu (and other expressions) were commonly used by the
Arab grammarians as accepted technical terms for 'predicate' and 'sub¬
ject' (cf Levin: Musnad ch. VI, 161-162, id.: Distinction 118, and fur¬
ther below. Al-muxbar 'anhu will also be found, e. g., in Sibawayh, 'Abü
Bakr b. al-'Anbäri, al-Zaggägi, 'Abdalqähir al-öurgäni, Ibn Hiääm al-
'An^äri). Xabar al-mubtada' and xabar al-fä'il (Ibn Ya'iä: Sarh L IO222 =
C1 85^) are equally termed xabar [the latter — xabar fi'li (Ibn HiSäm: Gä¬
mi' 156)]- The question mooted in Arabic grammar from its beginnings
was not whether in a sentence like qäma Zaydun, the same as in Zaydun
qäma "Zayd stood" the word qäma "stood" was, or represented, the
xabar 'predicate'; the problem behind the controversy was mostly the
question what analysis of the verbal predicate could better account for
the asymmetry observable in comparing, e.g., qäma l-Zaydüna and al-
Zaydüna qämü.'* The preponderant opinion among the grammarians,
and the one consentaneous to reason, was that the formations apparent
as Vb. Pred. + Noun Subj. and Noun Subj. -I- Vb. Pred. were not identi¬
cal, or symmetrical, in their basic structure. Recognition of this fact
does by no manner of means imply a "double definition ofthe sentence"
failing to perceive the actual division common to both nominal and ver¬
bal sentences into subject and predicate. Nevertheless, the criticism
made by Weil and Fleisch was similarly repeated by M^hiri,^
' See Fleisch: Verbe 153-155. Fleisch ibid. 155 n. 2 did not fah to niention that the expression al-muxbar 'anhu is found in Ibn al-'Anbäri: 'Asrär "dans ses
explieations"; his recommendation was in fact to adopt this expression by
making it a technical term.
"* An especially clear presentation of this point is given by al-öurgäni: Muqta-
^id I 327,7-3288.
' Mähiri: öumlah 40]o.i7 especially disapproves of the treatment in traditio¬
nal grammar of N -I- V sentences as nominal. Such analysis, he thinks, fails to pay proper attention to the semantic function ofthe initial noun, which is that of
an agent. MShibi's general criticism of the principles underlying the Arab
grammatical tradition is in the same vein.
Mosel* and Rundgren.' D. Cohen: Formes dupredicat, while criticiz¬
ing the Arab grammarians for having analysed the N -b V sentence-form
as nominal,* rejects the analysis ofthe extraposed mubtada'a,s subject,'
and expresses his agreement with Fleisch, stating (ibid. n. 5, p. 226)
that "la tradition grammaticale arabe n'a pas su degager la notion de
sujet grammatical". Unlike Cohen, M. G. Carter would not accord to
the fäHl "agent", which follows its verb, the status of a subject, only mubtada's having in his view the right of being regarded, indiscriminate¬
ly, as "true subjects" (Carter's note 1 to al-Sirbini: Nür^ 7.5, p. 159).
Such an understanding of ' subject' , which might seem influenced by the
traditional terminology, is in fact contrary to the teachings ofthe Arab
grammarians, who insisted on the analogy between /ä'i'Z and mubtadd.
For better understanding the treatment of predicative relation in
medieval Arabic grammar, some evidence will be brought together and
examined in the following chapters conceming (1) the terminology of
predicative relation, (2) the functional definition ofthe parts of speech,
(3) kaläm and ^umlah, (4) the verb as a nexus-complex, and (5) the syn¬
tactical exercises of 'ixbdr.
I. Terminology of predicative relation
2 Terms (and semi-terminological expressions) that have been
employed for characterizing predicative relation faU under two catego-
* See Mosel: Term. Sib. esp. 2125, rightly criticized by Beeston: Rev. Mosel 650-651.
' Rundgren: Einfluß 134 speaks of Arabic "orthodox grammar" as surpri¬
singly still operating "mit einer doppelten Defmition des Satzes". Like Fleisch
he thinks that the Arab grammarians could not make the last step needed for
reaching a generalized idea ofthe primary parts ofthe sentence (ibid.).
' Cohen comes close to the doctrine once attributed to the Kufans (Ibn
Hiääm: Mugni C II 379u = D 497,) in taking e. g. Zaydun for fä'il (subject) in
Zaydun qäma the same as in qäma Zaydun regardless of position (and agree¬
ment) .
' A mubtada' that is resumed by a 'ä'id in an oblique case is, in Cohen's opin¬
ion, standing in extraposition, and cannot be regarded as a grammatical sub¬
ject. The Arab grammarians held the view that al-fi'lu wa-1-fä'ilu ^mlatun bi-
manzilati l-mubtada'i wa-xabarihi (al-Zaggägi: 'Idäh I2O19).
al-mubtada' na?iru l-fä'ili fi l-'ixbdri 'anhumä "the mubtada' is the counter¬
part ofthe fä'il in having both of them sth. predicated of them [i. e. in being both of them subjects]" (Ibn Ya'iS: Sarh L 107,4 = C I 8823). [The simhar terminology
in al-Mubarrad: Muqtadab III 127^ refers to the special case where an agent is
transformed into a predicate: darabtu al-däribu 'and &c., cf infra ch. V].
42 Gideon Goldenberg
lies: those referring to the relation, or connexion, itself between the
members of the predicative construction, and those referring to the
functional meaning conveyed through that connexion.
Tarkib, 'i^dfah, in'iqäd, iHiläf &c. will be found sporadically in the
grammatical literature for indicating 'nexus'. In keeping with the philo¬
sophical tradition of describing the predicative relation as a "conne¬
xion'' or "composition" (of subject and predicate)," grammarians would
sometimes speak ofthe nexus as i'tildf umon, combination" (al-Färisi:
'Idäh I 932_6)'^ or damm "joining"," or as 'iddfatu l-Say'i 'ilä l-Say'i wa-
'imälatuhü 'ilayhi wa-^a'luhü muttasilan wa-muldmisan "relating (or
attaching) (one) thing to (another) thing, inclining it to it and making it
connected and contiguous (to the other)" (al-öurgäni: Muqta^id I 773,
quoted in full below § 4); or else as al-tarkibu lladi yan'aqidu bihi l-
kalämu "the composition by which the sentence is bound" (Ibn Ya'iS:
Sarh L 23^ = C I 2O20).
The technical term in use for 'nexus' as such in Arab grammatical
writings throughout the ages is the well-known 'isnäd "leaning (of one
thing) against (another)".'* This terminology characterizing the rela¬
tion between subject and predicate implies that one ofthe main parts of
the sentence is made to lean upon the other. The members ofthe predi¬
cative construction are referred to as al-musnad and al-musnad 'ilayhi,
infelicitous terms that have at times caused great difficulties and much
'' For oövÜEOig indicating predicative nexus in Aristotle: Herm. 16''24-25, the Arabic metaphrase gives tarkib (Tshäq b. Hunajm: Herrn. Arah. 63.4 = 44|.2). Al- Färäbi: Herm. comment. 4424_27 explains tarkib as 'iddfah whose components are the predicate noun and the subject noun {al-ism al-mahmül wa-l-ism al-mawdü').
He would otherwise speak of irtibdt {al-nmhmül bi-l-mawdü') "connexion (ofthe predicate with the subject)" (al-Färäbi ibid. 33,5 20.22.23. 2s> 36,3, 3723_24, 4I23.24, 42i2, 44,5, 457 ,3, 4622, 105,4). Cf Boetius' terms: compositio, coniunctio, copula-
tio (Boetius: Herm. comment, maj. 433 A-B; Boetius: Herm. comment, min. 311
B-C).
'■^ fa-l-ismuya'talifu ma'a l-ismi fa-yakünu kaläman mufidan. . . wa-ya'taliful- fi'lu ma'a l-ismi fa-yakünu dälika (al-Färisi: 'Idäh I 932_4, closely repeating the words ofhis teacher Ibn al-Sarräg: Mü^az 27,j_,7); ma'nä l-i'tiläfi l-'ifädatu (al- öurgäni: Muqtasid I 93^).
The noun is the subject of predication, wa-huwa 'an tadumma 'ilayhi mä
tatimmu bihi l-fä'idatu "it is that you join (or: attach) to it sth. with which the 'informative usefulness' is completed" (al-Sirbini: iVwr 242). Other references
for damm in the same sense, v. al-Mayyäh: 'Isnäd I5.5, ibid. l,2-,4.
'* The discussion here following should be read in conjunction with Levin:
Musnad, where the problems involved are thoroughly studied and the relevant
information quoted at length.
confusion because of their grammatical ambiguity. The verbal construc¬
tion is 'asnadta B 'ila A "you lean(ed) B against A", "you made B lean upon A". The musnid is then always the speaker, but "musnad" can be
construed both (I) substantivally, to mean "a support upon which
something leans" (= sanad), and (II) adjectivally, as a passive participle in the sense of "that which is made to lean (upon sth.)"; and "al-musnad 'ilayhi" can be either (I) a direct attribute with ('ilay)hi referring to the
other term mentioned before, or (II) an indirect attribute with ('ilay)hi
resuming its own hidden pronominal man'üt.
The terms (1) al-musnad and (2) al-musnad 'ilayhi (being thus derived
from 'asnadtaB'ilaA) would then yield two possible interpretations (I &
II):
A
I (1) almvsnad [= alsanad] = A
B A
(2) almusnad 'itay-hi [= olmusnadB 'ila musnadinA] = B
B
II (1) almusnad [= almusnad^ {'ila musnadin'ilayhi A)] =B
A (B) A
(2) al-musnad'ilay-hi [= al{A)-musnad{B) 'ilay-hi{A) musnadun{B)] = A
It is obvious that 1(1) = 11(2) = A, and 1(2) = II(I) = B.
It has convincingly been argued'^ that Sibawayh must have under¬
stood the terms according to interpretation I, viz. al-musnad=A, and al¬
musnad 'ilayhi (= 'ila A) = B. '* So far as the structure ofthe nominal sen¬
tence is concemed, Sibawayh made his meaning clear that the subject is
A, the support, and the predicate B is made to lean upon the subject.
The only direct evidence for this identification is Sibawayh's incidental
statement" sa5ang fa-l-mubtada'u musnadun wa-l-mabniyyu 'alayhi
musnadun 'ilayhi (Sibawayh I P 218,2 = B 256,7.i8). Sibawayh does not
come here just to correlate two sets of grammatical terms for the benefit
of the unleamed, but to state that in the constmction under discussion
" See Praetorius: Rev. Jahn 710-711, Talmon: Problems 66, and esp.
Levin: Musnad 149-151.
Sibawayh's terms al-mubtada' and al-mabniyy 'alayhi (sc. 'aid l-mubtada') have a similar grammatical structure (though a different meaning).
" The general statement that follows appears in a section dealing with the
special construction hädä 'Abdu-llähi munfaliqan, not in the chapter where al¬
musnad and al-musnad 'ilayhi are mainly discussed.
44 Gideon Goldenberg
the part that is made to come first (which cd-mubtada' is by definition) is
the subject A {al-musnad), and the second part (wliich is "built" on the
first) is the predicate B (al-musnad 'ild A). As everyone knows, that is
not the case in the verbal sentence, where the term coming normally
first is the predicate. The desired parallel statement relating predica¬
tion with word-order in the verbal sentence is provided by Ibn al-Sarräg,
who analyses qäma 'Abdu-llähi "'Abdallah stood" s&ying fa-'Abdu-llähi mabniyyun 'aid qäma wa-qäma kaditun 'anhu "'Abdu-llähi is "built" on
qäma, and qäma is its predicate"'* (Ibn al-Sarräg: Mü^az 292i_22' see
also 29,3_,5; cf. id.: 'U$ül I 39,o.,,, 628_n, 687.13).
Sibawayh himself refrained from any other indication that could
directly identify subject and predicate in terms of 'isnäd, and never
stated explicitly which part is according to his doctrine the A musnad
and which is the B musnad 'ilayhi (= 'ilä A) in the verbal sentence. The
inference (Mosel: Term. Sib. 19, 221-223, Talmon: Problems 63, and
Levin: Musnad 148-149, cf. Praetorius: Rev. John 710-711) that
Sibawayh's musnad w&a not the subject but always the part in first posi¬
tion (mubtada' or verb) is founded on Sibawayh's statement that in V -I-
N it is the first part that "needs" the second as in N -I- N (v. Mosel ib..
Levin: Musnad 148b). Yet that statement can also be understood
otherwise, as saying that the predicate B needs the subject A the same
as the subject A needs the predicate B. Does not Sibawayh say in the
heading to his ch. 3 about al-musnad (A) and al-musnad 'ilayhi (B) that
none of them can do without the other ( lä yastagni wähidun minhumä
'an-i l-'äxar)1 The need for a second part to form a sentence is one
aspect of predication; the 'isnäd ofthe predicate upon the subject is an¬
other aspect. The difference between the two is made clear by Ibn al-
Sarräg in the passage quoted above. In fact what Sibawayh intended
when saying fa-l-mubtada'u musnadun wa-l-mabniyyu 'alayhi musnadun
'ilayhi (v. supra) closely resembles what was somewhat differently for¬
mulated later by Ibn al-Sarräg: al-mubtada' yubtada'u ßhi bi-l-ismi l-
muhaddati 'anhu qabla l-haditi "in (the case of) the mubtada' one begins with the subject before the predicate". The difference between mubtada'
and fä'il, according to Ibn al-Sarräg, is that al-fä'il mubtada'un bi-l-
haditi qablahü "the fä'il is preceded by the predicate" [lit. "(as to) the fä'il, one begins with the predicate before it"] (Ibn al-Sarräg: 'U^ll 687.
g; cf. ib. 8I7.8). As already mentioned above Sibawayh himself usually
(and maybe deliberately) evaded practising the known terms musnad
ffadii for 'predicate' is discussed in the sequel.
and musnad 'ilayhi, and consequently failed to specify their respective functions."
Of great interest to Sibawayh's terminology is the occurrence in the
same sense of musnad 'ilayhi in the Arabic presentation of Aristotelian
Hermeneutics by Ibn al-Muqaffa'.^" R. Talmon has recently shown that
in the Logic of Ibn al-Muqaffa' musnad 'ilayhi is used in its verbal sense,
meaning "leaning upon it, predicated of it":^' Aristotle's definition of
the verb as being always an indication of what is said of something else
(äei TÖv xaö' etepou Xeyopevuv oripeiov) is rendered by Ibn al-Muqaffa'
Id yakünu 'illä mahmülan 'aid gaynhi musnadan 'ilayhi "it is always pre¬
dicated^^ of something else; (it always) leans upon it" (Ibn al-Muqaffa':
Manfiq28]2> cf- ibid. 2815); musnadan'ilayhi is parallel to mahmülan'ala
gayrihi, musnadan glossing upon mahmülan and ('Hay)hi referring to
('aid) gayri(hi)P The same text of Ibn al-Muqaffa' contains much that is
important to the historical study of grammatical terminology which
does not come within the purview of the present inquiry. Relevant,
however, to the treatment of predicative relation in Arabic grammar is
the use here attested of mxtsnad 'ila ... in the sense of "predicated of
. . ." (mahmül 'ala. . .) and the fact that it is employed in connexion with
the verb characterized as being by definition predicate (see ch. II).
3 While the same doctrine which regarded the predicate B as being
made to "lean" upon ('usnida 'ila) the subject A persisted in Arab lin¬
guistics, the terms al-musnad and al-musnad 'ilayhi later came to be
understood according to interpretation II, viz. al-musnad = B, al-mus¬
nad 'ilayhi = A (see above). The evidence adduced by A. Levin shows
this usage as beginning in the tenth century (Levin: Musnad 151-153).
" Sibawayh's disinclination to use these terms, whatever his motivation might be, is justified by their inconvenience and literal ambiguity. Their ambigu¬
ity was explained above. Inconvenient they are because term B in Sibawayh's usage is incapable of being mentioned standing by itself: "al-musnad 'ilayhi" is impossible when not following the term to which ('ilay)hi refers; "al-musnad 'ila l-musnad" would be clumsy and obscure.
^° Or rather the son of Ibn al-Muqaffa' (2nd half 8th cent.)? See Zimmer¬
mann: Log. trad. 537 n. 2.
^' See Talmon: Taßir, id. Musnad. My thanks are due to R. Talmon for let¬
ting me consult his unpublished paper (Talmon: Musnad) and for providing me
with a xerox copy of Ibn al-Muqaffa': Mantiq. The occurrence itself of musnad
'üayhi in this text was first mentioned by Zimmermann: Log. trad. 544 n.
Since mahmül as a technical term for "predicate" is common to all sources, we are allowed to translate it here as istüäh.
Similar wording of the same definition ofthe verb wül be found in al-Färisi:
'Idäh I 76ij: 'amma l-fi'lu fa-mä käna mustanidan 'ilä Say'in (cf. al-Zaggägi: 'Idäh 42i8.i9 quoted below § 3).
46 Gideon Goldbnberg
Levin (ibid. 161-162) also shows the correspondence between the
terms derived from the roots s-n-d, a;-6-r and h-d-t. These will be treated
here together so far as they are interchangeable as terms for subject,
predicate and predication.^'' While 'isnäd refers literally to the conne¬
xion itself between subject and predicate, the terms of 'ixbdr and those
of hadit belong to the other category, as they refer to the function con¬
veyed by the nexus, and represent very clearly the idea of predication
as the attribution of new information relating to the subject.
For terms derived from x-b-r, the basic verbal construction is 'axbar-
tahü (rarely: xabbartahü) bi-E 'anA. The muxbiris then the speaker, the
muxbar is the interlocutor,'*' al-muxbar bi-hi is the linguistic unit that
expresses the xabar (i.e. the new information, the predicate) , dl-muxbar
'an-hu is the subject of whom (or of which) the xabar is said.^'
The verbal construction with derivatives of h-d-t is haddaita 'an A bi-
B. Al-muhadditis, the speaker, al-muhaddat 'an-huie the subject, and al-
hadit ('an A) is the predicate.
The following excerpts from the grammatical literature are intended
to show how the terms of 'isnäd, 'ixbär and hadit are comparable and do
commonly interchange, and how deeply rooted was the idea of predica¬
tion as the basis of sentence-structure (nominal and verbal alike) among
the Arab grammarians.^'
In Sibawayh's explanation ofthe basic structure common to passive
and active verbal sentences, the verbal idea is said to be al-muhaddat
bihi, the subject nouns being referred to as al-asmä' al-muhaddat 'anhä
(Sibawayh I P 10ig_2o = B 14io-i2; see also ibid. I P 128i9 = B 154^ and
other instances). Even if such use of these expressions was not yet fully
technicalized, it perfectly corresponds with the established terminology
of later grammarians.
The terms fä'idah and 'ifädah, or (kaläm, or qawl) mufid, referring to the
"(informative) usefulness" ofthe utterance to the hearer (al-fd'idatu li-1-sämi'ifi l-xabari [al-Mubarrad: Muqtadab IV I267]), just indicate generally that the con¬
struction is communicative (it should then have the structure of a sentence).
These terms will not be discussed here for themselves.
Cf., e.g., al-muxätab al-muxbar (Sibawayh 1 P 109i7 = B ISOjo, cf ibid. I P 17i8 = B 22||). [Rarely muxbar is perhaps found to occur as abbreviated where
muxbar bihi or muxbar 'anhu are the appropriate terms.]
For the modal meaning of xabar see below § 4; al-'ixbdr 'an X in the sense of
"forming X into a predicate" will be discussed in ch. V.
^' The idea itself of the grammarians conceming predication has already been made clear in previous studies, see refs. in fn. 1 above. Sibawayh's usage of the expressions mentioned is not discussed in this context, because not all of them
were already employed in his book as estabhshed technical terms.
Ibn al-Sarräg used mostly terms of hadit for predication in the verbal
sentence as in the nominal.^* He also expressed himself explicitly
saying that al-fä'il mudäri'un li-l-mubtada'i min 'a§li 'annahumä
^ami'an muhaddatun 'anhumä "the fä'il (i. e. the agent which follows the
verb in a verbal sentence) resembles the mubtada' (= the subject at the
beginning of a nominal sentence), as both of them are subjects (parts of
the sentence of which the new information is predicated)" (Ibn al-Sar-
räg: 'U^ll 6812-13); the difference between them is inthe position ofthe
subject: when it is a mubtada' the subject comes first, and when it is a
fä'il it is preceded by the predicate (ibid. 687.8, quoted above).
Also al-Zaggagi speaks, with respect to the mubtada', about mudd-
ra'atuhü li-l-fä'ili "its resemblance to the /ä'ir (al-Zaggägi: önmaliS^).
He elsewhere treated philosophically the division ofthe parts of speech
in three categories, which he considered universal. After stating that
the interlocutor and the speaker and the subject and the predicate are
substances and accidents represented in speech by their names
(nouns) he says that (being different from the nominal parts) al-xahar
huwa l-fi'lu wa-ma Stuqqa minhu 'aw tadammana ma'nahu, wa-huwa l-
haditu li-lladi dakamähu "the xabar is the verb and what is derived from
it or implies its meaning, and it (= the xabar) is predicate of what we
have mentioned" (al-Zaggägi: 'Idäh 42 1^. ig). The full meaning ofthe pas¬
sage as a whole and of the terms there used needs further study,but
the identification of xabar (and hodit) with verb, reflecting the philoso¬
phical tradition, is another evidence of these terms being used regard¬
less of sentence-type and word-order. The analysis of, e.g., (^aroftiwas a
predicative complex where the speaker himself (as represented in the
1st pers. afformative) is the subject (al-Zaggägi: 'Idäh 1867.8) will be
discussed in ch. IV below.
In Ibn öiimi's usage: ' asnadta B'ila A = haddatta bi-B 'anA (= nasabta
B 'ila Al); \. Ibn Öinni: Luma' 10^.7 & I82.3.
'Abü 'Ali al-Färisi makes it clear that any predicate, whether it is
nominal or verbal, following the subject or preceding it, is equally the
predicate {xabar) of its subject norm: 'Abdu-llähi mu.qbilun, qdmaBakmn
— fa-muqbilun xabamn 'an 'Abdi-llähi, wa-qäma xabamn 'an Bakrin (al-
Färisi: 'Idäh I 69io). His statement 'amma l-fi'lu fa-mä käna mustanidan
'ila Say'in "as to the verb, (it is) what is predicated of (lit. leaning upon)
Ibn al-Sarräg: Afü^az 29i3., 5 21; id.: 'Usüli 39,o.ii.
^' al-muxätab wa-l-muxafib wa-l-muxahbar 'anhu wa-l-muxabbar\bihi\ 'a^sä-
mun wa-'a'rääun tanübu fi l-'ibärati 'anhä 'asmä'uhä (al-Zaggägi: 'lääh 42]4.i5).
^° Cf. Versteegh: Greek Elements 145-148.
48 Gideon Goldenberg
something" (al-Färisi: Ü^äh I 76)5, also quoted above fn. 23) is explain¬
ed by al-öurgäni: Muqta^id I 76i9.2o: i'lam 'anna l-isnnda ma^rahu
ma^rä l-ixbäri, fa-kd" annahü qäla: wa-'amma l-fi'lu fa-mä käna xabaran 'an äay'in "you should know that 'isnäd is analogous to 'ixbär, and it is as if he said: as to the verb, (it is) that which is a predicate (xabar) of some¬
thing" (see also ch. II below). Al-öurgäni is even more explicit when he
explains the principles of sentence-structure sajdng that a nexus can be
formed in Arabic only bayna l-ismi wa-l-ismi ka-qawlika: Zaydun
'axüka, fa-Zaydun mubtada'un wa-'axüka xabaruhü, wa-kullu wähidin
minhuma smun, 'aw bayna l-fi'li wa-l-ismi ka-qawlika: xara^a Zaydun
wa-surraBakrun wa-ntalaqa 'Abdu-llähi, fa-fiädihi 'afälun wa-mä ba'da-
hä muxbarun 'anhu "[the nexus (i'tiläf) will only be formed] between a
noun and a noun, as you (may) say: Zaydun 'axüka ("Zayd is your bro¬
ther"), and then Zaydun is a mubtada' (= a subject that is made to
occupy initial position) and 'axüka is its predicate, and each of the two
is a noun; or beteeen a verb and a noun, as you say: xara^a Zaydun
("Zayd went out") and surra Bakrun ("Bakr is happy") and infalaqa 'Ab¬
du-llähi ("'Abdallah set ofT), these are verbs, and what follows them is
a subject (muxbar 'anhu)" (al-öurgäni: Muqta^id I 936.9).
The use of 'ixbär and 'isnäd in the same context will also be found in
Ibn al-'Anbäri: 'Asrär, where the verb, e.g., is characterized as mdyux-
baru bihi wa-lä yuxbaru 'anhu (3^.7 = ^4io.i i) or mä 'usnida 'ila Say'in wa-
lam yusnad 'ilayhi Say'un (6,3 = ^117-8). both expressions sajdng that a
verb can be a predicate but not a subject (cf. ch. II below) . As to the sub¬
ject noun, he explains 'anna l-mubtadxi'a muxbarun 'anhu kamä 'anna l-
fd'ila muxbarun 'anhu "the mubtada' is a subject the same as the fä'il is a subject" (Ibn al-'Anbäri: '^srär 3O22. 23 = ^ßSg-io)- Here as in some other
places, the fact that both the mubtada' and the fä'il are subjects is indi¬
cated for explaining why both of them are in the nominative.
In terms of 'isnäd, 'ixbär emd hadit, the basic constructions of nominal
and verbal sentences alike are equally analysed as being composed of a
subject and a predicate (the arrow indicates word-order):
nominal sentence verbal sentence any sentence
A Subject Noun (al-nvuhtada') Noun (fä'il) musnad 'ilayhi muxbar 'anhu muhaddal 'anhu
B Predicate any expression
(al-mahniyy 'aid l-mubtada') Verb
(fi'l)
musnad ('ila A)
xabar (or: al-muxbar bihi) hadit (or: al-muhaddat bihi)
If any additional evidence is needed at all to convince the disbelieving
that this terminology was common and well established and repeatedly
employed to convey the accepted idea that each sentence is to be analy¬
sed, in the first place, as consisting ofa subject and a predicate, then Ibn
Ya'iS can still be quoted analysing, e.g., Zaydun 'axüka "Zayd is your
brother" as muxbar 'anhu + xabar, and, e. g., qäma Zaydun "Zayd stood"
with the verb as xabar and the following noun as muxbar 'anhu (Ibn
Ya'iä: Sarh L 285.8 = C I 2O20.22) or the verb as aradar predicated (s-n-d)
ofa muhaddat 'anhu (ibid. L 287.8 = C12O21.22, also L 2815.15 = C1 25].2).
Instances of referring to predication as 'isnäd ('ila l-ismA) = 'ixbär ('an
A) = hadit ('anA) (like Ibn 'Aqil: Sarh to verse 10, al-Sirbini: A'Mr24i)
could easily be multiplied.
4 Though interchangeable as terms for subject, predicate and predica¬
tion, the derivatives of s-n-d, x-b-r, and h-d-t differ in their implications, as xabar also denotes "statement" or "proposition", thus contrasting
with the other, 'modal', kinds of sentences. About the number of these
classes of sentences there was no agreement between the scholars, sug¬
gested categories ranging from two to six.^' The Aristotelian XoyoQ äno-
(pavTixog, which was rendered into Arabic as qawl ^äzim^^ or Icaläm
fa^l,^^ will be found in the grammatical literature marked as xabar,
'ixbär, ^umlah xabariyyah (e.g. Ibn öinni: Luma' 75io) or kaläm xabari
(al-Sirbini: Afwr 2 8O9). Aristotle's definition of sentences ofthis category
as having in them truth or falsity (Aristotle: Herm. 17*3) — in Arabic $idq
or kidh^* — was often repeated (sometimes incidentally) by grammar¬
ians.
A few instances quoted from Arab grammatical writings will suffice
for illustrating the use and the meaning of this terminology: — wa-l-
xabaru md ^äza 'aid qä'ilihi l-ta$diqu wa-l-takdibu "and the xabar is that
whose sayer can be declared to be right or wrong" (al-Mubarrad: Muqta¬
dab III 894); wa-bi-l-xabari yaqa'u l-ta^diqu wa-l-takdibu "and in the
xabar^^ lies the expression of truth and falsity" (Ibn al-Sarräg: 'U^ll
67|4); in connexion with the interrogative 'a-, the difference (farq) bayna
" See Hasan Sädili FarhCtd in his note 14 (pp. 148-149) to Ibn öinni:
'Uqüd, Versteegh: Greek Elements 145-148.
" Aristotle: Herm. 17''2-3 as translated by Tshäq b. Hunayn. Incidentally
kaläm ^äzim in Ibn al-Muqaffa': Mantiq 29,5.
Ibn al-Muqaffa': Mantiq 29,0 12 & elsewhere.
So in Tshäq b. Hunayn's translation; cf. Ibn al-Muqaffa': Mantiq 29,5_|8 In this context, the a;o6ar mentioned is the predicate in a declarative nomi¬
nal sentence.
4 ZDMG 138/1
50 Gideon Goldenberg
l-istifhämi wa-l-xabari "between question and statement"' is discussed
('Abü Bakr b. al-'Anbäri: 'Alifät 4564.9 = ^84,2-19); 'abniyalu l-kalämi
'arba'atun: 'ixbärun wa-stixbärun wa-ammn wa-nahyun "constmctions
of the sentence are four: statement, question, command, and prohibi¬
tion" (Ibn Öinni: 'Uqüd I4O5); a relative clause can be no other than
^umlatun xahariyyatun tal),tamilu l-$idqa wa-l-kidba "a statement, which
is susceptible of tmth and falsity" (Ibn öinni: Luma' 75io.ii. also id.:
Xa^ä'i^ I 18612.13); al-kalämu qawlun mußdun, wa-huwa xabamn wa-
HnJä'un (Ibn Hi§äm: öämi' 24).''
Since the terms xabar and 'ia;6är connote "statement", their applica¬
tion to syntactic analysis is restricted to declarative sentences. In the
analysis of other kinds of sentences the more generally applicable terms
that indicate neutrally "nexus" will necessarily be employed: i'lam
'anna l-'isnäda ma^rähu ma^rä l-'ixbäri ( ) gayra 'anna ß l-'isnddi
fä'idatan laysat fi l-'ixbäri, wa-hiya 'anna min al-'afäli mä lä yasihhu
'ifläqu l-'ixbäri 'alayhi ka-ß'li l-'amri nahwi li-yadrib Zaydun, 'id-i
l-'amru lä yakünu min hay tu 'anna l-xabara mä daxalahu l-^idqu wa-
l-kidbu, wa-ya^ihhu 'an yutlaqa 'alayhi l-'isnädu, li-'anna, hagiqola l-
'isnädi 'iddfatu l-Say'i 'ild l-Say'i wa-'imälaluhü 'ilayhi wa-^a'luhü mutta-
gilan wa-mulämisan "you should know that 'isnäd is analogous to 'ixbär
( ) except that 'isnäd has some use that is absent from 'ixbär, as
there are verbs to which 'ixbär is inapplicable, like imperative verbs as
e.g. li-yadrib Zaydun ("let Za,yd strike!"), since command is not[xabar],
for xabar is that which admits tmth and falsity; and 'isnäd is applicable
to them, because the real meaning of 'isnäd is relating (one) thing to
(another) thing, inclining it to it, and making it connected and conti¬
guous (to the other)" (al-öurgäni: Muqta^idl 7619-773). The same idea
was also expressed clearly by Ibn Ya'iS: al-'isnäd 'a'ammu min al-xabari
li-'anna l-'isnäda yaSmalu l-xabara wa-gayrahü min al-'amri wa-l-nahyi
wa-1-istifhämi, fa-kullu xabarin musnadun wa-laysa kullu musnadin
xabaran "'isnäd is more general than xabar, for 'isnäd includes xabar
" It is explained that in, e. g., 'äl-dakarayni harrama "is it the two males that he forbade (to eat)?" Qur'än vi 143 it is the prolongation that makes the differ¬
ence between the statement form 'at- and the question 'äl- (< 'a+al-).
^' This classification implies an overall distinction between the expression of fact ('ixbdr) and the expression of everything involving the speaker's wish or attitude {'iyiSd'). About 'ixbär (xabar) and 'inSä'v. Fleischer: Kleinere Schriften
I 779-780, III 541-542. The same distinction, with respect to verb-forms, was
identically expressed in Ottoman Turkish grammar by the terms siyga-i ihbariye and in§ai siygalar.
("statement") as well as not-xabar: command and prohibition and ques¬
tion; so every xabar is musnad but not every musnad is xabar" (Ibn
Ya'is: Sarh L 282-3 = C I 20,6-,7).'*
Ibtidä' deserves to be studied apart, and will not be further discussed
in this connexion.
II. The functional definition of the parts of speech
5 The characterization of noun and verb in terms of their syntactical
function in predication has already been mentioned above, especially
the Arabic rendering of Aristotle's definition of verb as indicating what
is predicated of something else (v. supra § 2, cf. Versteegh: Greek Ele¬
ments 71-72). The similar definition of noun as a subject of which
something can be predicated was studied by Versteegh: Greek Ele¬
ments 57-59.'' The definition of noun by referring to its function as a
subject was said to be the most useful {'anfa'u 'alämäti l-ismi) because it
could also be applied to pronominal bound morphemes which do not
show the other characteristics of nouns; see al-Sirbini: A'Mr24,-5 (cf. § 10
below) . Neither of these definitions will be discussed for itself in the
present chapter,*" nor the question of the priority of the noun, which
was connected with these definitions.'" This chapter is intended to
adduce some instances illustrating the method of defining systemati¬
cally all parts of speech by their capability of occurring in the positions
of subject and predicate. This method, though not equally developed in
'* This reference is mentioned in Levin: Musnad 162a. In al-Radi: Sarh al-
Kdfiyah I 82-6 the 'isnäd "nexus" is said to be present either on the surface {fi l- hdl) or at the bottom {Ji l-'asl), the latter category also embracing the forms that are not statements, which would not fall under 'ixbdr.
" The definition mentioned there which is ascribed to al-'Axfaä al-'Awsat says: al-ismu mä ^äzafihi nafa'ani wa-darrani "the noun is that which admits nafaäni (" profited me") and darrani (" harmed me")" (al-Zaggägi:
'Idäh 49,2). This is a method of estabhshing by one specific test what in terms of mid-century American structuralism would be an "external distribution (or:
morpheme-position) class". More developed is the indication ofthe syntactical environment in general terms of subject and predicate, for defining the noun by its susceptibility of being a muxbar 'anhu.
Definition ofthe verb by its being a xabar wiW be found, e.g., in Ibn öinni:
'Uqüd 140,5; for the noun defined by being a subject see, e. g., al-öurgäni: öumal
04, al-ZamaxSari: Mufassal 4,9-20 = 67-8. Ihn Mälik: 'Alfiyyah verse 10, Ibn
HiSäm: öämi' l,o.
*' About the priority ofthe noun see Versteegh: Oreek Elements 142-145.
Regarding the noun as having priority over the other parts of speech was not
confined to its privileges of occurrence.
V
52 Gideon Goldbnbekg
all grammatical writings, was eommonly known among the grammar¬
ians, and will be found in scholarly treatises, also in some practical
standard books. Besides being employed for defining the categories this
method clearly establishes their hierarchy. In Ibn al-Sarräg's presenta¬
tion of the method as generalized for defining all three categories, the
noun is still characterized as being capable of occupying the position of
a subject; later it was usually defined as capable of being both a subject
and a predicate.
fa-l-ismu taxii$$uhü 'aSyä'u yuHabaru bihä minhä 'an yuqäla 'inna l-
isma mä ^äza 'an yuxbara 'anhu, nal}wa qawlika: 'Amran muntaliqun wa-
qäma Bakrun, wa-l-fi'lu mä käna xabaran wa-lä ya^üzu 'an yuxbara 'anhu
[ ], wa-l-hurüfu mä lä ya^üzu 'an yuxbara 'anhä wa-lä ya^üzu 'an
taküna xabaran [ ] "the noun is distinguished by recognition marks,
one of which is to say that the noun is that of which it is possible to pre¬
dicate (sth.), as you say 'Amrun muntaliqun ("'Amr is setting ofT) and
qäma Bakrun ("Bakr stood") ; and the verb is that which would be predi¬
cate and it is not possible for it to be a subject [ ], and the particles
are those which can be neither subjects nor predicates" (Ibn al-Sarräg:
'U^l I 398-14; cf. id.: Mü^az 272-,4).
hädihi l-'aqsäm al-talätah lahä talätu marätiba, fa-minhä mä yuxbaru
bihi wa-yuxbaru 'anhu, wa-huwa l-ismu, nahum Zaydun qä'imun, wa-
minhä mä yuxbaru bihi wa-lä yuxbaru 'anhu, wa-huwa l-fi'lu, nahum
qäma Zaydun, wa-minhä mä lä yuxbaru bihi wa-lä yuxbaru 'anhu, wa-
huwa l-harfu, nahum hai wa-bal "these three parts (of speech) have three
ranks: (one) of them is that which may be a predicate and may be a sub¬
ject, and that is the noun, like Zaydun qä'imun ( "Zayd stands") ; (one) of
them is that which can be a predicate and cannot be a subject, and that
is the verb, like qäma Zaydun ("Zayd stood"); and (one) of them is that
which can be neither predicate nor subject, and that is the harf (par¬
ticle), like hal&nd bal" (Ibn al-'Anbäri: 'Asrär3s.% = ^49-12; also id. 'In^df
2l3-,9 = C 4,7-54). _
al-manfuq bihi 'immä 'an yadulla 'ala ma'nan yasihhu l-'ixbäru bihi
wa-'anhu wa-huwa l-ismu [ ] wa-'immä 'an yasil),}),a l-'ixbäru bihi lä
'anhu wa-huwa l-fi'lu [ ] wa-'immä 'an lä ya^ihha l-'ixbäru 'anhu wa¬
ld bihi wa-huwa l-harfu "the pronounced [sc. word] will either indicate a
meaning proper for predication to be expressed by it [= pred.] and of it
[= subj.], and that is noun [ ]; or proper for predication to be
expressed by it and not of it, and that is verb [ ]; or not proper for
predication to be expressed neither of it nor by it, and that is a particle"
(al-Zawäwi: Fu^l 3,3-43). Cf. al-Mutarrizi: Misbäh 8,-2 for a similar
statement couched in terms derived from h-d-t.
For explaining why a minimal nexus-construction ought to consist of
either two nouns or a noun and a verb, Ibn Ya'iä mentioned the fact that
al-ism kamä yakünu muxbaran 'anhu fa-qad yakünu xabaran "the noun,
the same as it may be a subject, would also be a predicate", and al-fi'l
nufsuhü xabamn "the verb itself is a predicate" and therefore carmot
function as a subject, or without a subject noun, while al-harf ^ä'a li-
ma'ruinfi l-ismi wa-l-fi'lifa-huwa ka-l-^uz'i minhumä, wa-^z'u l-Say'i lä
yan'aqidu ma'a gayrihi kaläman "the particle comes to indicate some
meaning in the noun and the verb, and it is like a part of them;*^ and a
part of a thing would not compose with the rest of it a sentence" (Ibn
Ya'iä: Sarh L 237.,o = C I 2021.24).'"
A later author similarly expressed the same idea saying that al-ismu
bi-hasabi l-wad'i ya^luhu li-an yaküna musnadan wa-musnadan Hlayhi,
wa-l-fi'lu ya^luhu li-kaumihi musnadan Id musnadan 'ilayhi, wa-l-harfu lä
ya^luhu li-'dhadihimd "the noun, according to function, is fit to be predi¬
cate and subject, the verb is fit to be predicate but not subject, and the
particle would not fit to be any ofthe two" (al-Radi: Sarh al-Käfiyah I
8apu-pu).
The functional definition of word-classes is for a certainty an integral
part of Arab linguistic heritage, and it caimot be separated from the
generally applicable notion of predicative relation.
III. Kaläm and ^umlah
6 Kaläm and ^umlah as grammatical terms overlap in their imphca¬
tions, and are comparable when denoting 'sentence'. In that sense they
are sometimes interchangeable, and often confused, but are not synony¬
mous. Kaläm means "speech" or "utterance", and thence a self-sufficing unit of speech, an independent sentence; ^umlah "ensemble, complex"
is opposed to mufrad "a single word", and is employed as a technical
term meaning a nexal construction, a structured sentence or clause of
any form or type.'*" The precise meamngs of kaläm and ^umlah (translat- li'anna l-hmfa lä ma'nä lahüß nafsihi "because the particle does not have a sense of its own" (Ibn Ya'iS: Sarh L 28g.9 = C I 2432-23).
Cf. ibid. L 283-10 = C I 24,4-23, wfiich is also quoted by Levin: Musnad 159 a-b.
The contrast between (a) simple expressions (single words) and (b) compo¬
site expressions (subject — predicate combinations) goes probably back to Aris¬
totle's Categories 1^6-19; cf Versteegh: Greek Elements f39. 'The grammati¬
cal terms (a) mufrad a,nd (b) ^mZoA correspond to (a) mufrad a.nd (b) mu'allaf in the later Arabic version by 'Atir al-Din al-'Abhari of Prophyry's Eisagoge (al- 'Abhari: Eisagoge Arah. 422-5^ = 17-18).
54 Gideon Goldenberg
ed "discours" and "proposition" resp. by de Sacy: Anth. gramm. 2253i.
32) will presently be explained by some excerpts from the grammatical
literature. The reason of dealing here with these notions is the fact that
they are connected with the definition in Arabic grammar of the sen¬
tence as primarily consisting of a subject and a predicate.
The history of kaläm and ^umlah as syntactical terms will not be stu¬
died in this connnexion. Terminological (or semi-terminological) use of
kaläm for "sentence" (kaläm mustaqim "correct speech" sometimes
denoting a well-constituted sentence) will already be found in Siba¬
wayh. öumlah appears to have been used by al-Mäzini;'*' it was well
known to al-Mubarrad (v. esp. his Muqtadab III I774); in the Träh al-
Qur'än attributed to al-Zaggag it is a well-established Xerm.*^
Since ^umlah is a predicative construction, it may be revealing an in¬
telligible purpose (mufidah) and may thus be expected, in its basic form,
to make some complete sense. But ^umlah is often one part, not neces¬
sarily capable of standing alone, of some kaläm which is complex or
compound. As ^mlah mufidah which is tämmah "complete" is also a
kaläm, the two terms have not always been kept properly apart.
In the usage of Ibn al-Sarräg kaläm tämm is a complete and indepen¬
dent sentence; if it is incomplete or imperfect it is kaläm gayr tämm; a
clause or a sentence taking part in a larger sentence is ^mlah. Sen¬
tences in general may be referred to as al-kaläm al-tämm wa-l-^umal
(Ibn al-Sarräg: 'U^l I 43,4, 445.5,4 i^ n). A sentence which forms a pre¬
dicate (xabar) of some mubtada'\& ^umlah, syntactically equivalent to a
mufrad, and can itself consist of fi'lSc fä'il (= hadit & mu}).addat 'anhu) or ibtidä' & xabar (= muhaddat 'anhu & hadit) (Ibn al-Sarräg: 'U9ÜI I 7O9.
,2.18; cf. ibid. 637.8). An important observation is made by Ibn al-Sarräg,
saying explicitly: kullu ^mlatin ta'ti ba'da l-mubtada'i fa-hukmuhd fi
'i'räbihä ka-hukmihä 'idä lam yakun qablahä mubtada'un "every ^mlah
that comes after a mubtada' [i.e. that forms a predicate] , the rule apply¬
ing to it with respect to its 'i'räb is (the same) as the rule applying to it
when there is no mubtada' before it" (Ibn al-Sarräg: 'U9ÜI I 70,2.,3). The
fact indicated here, viz. that the structure of a predicate clause would be
the same if it stood alone, is the reason why the distinction between
See al-Mubarrad: Muqtadab III 127,,; Ibn al-Sarrag: 'Usui II 331,4.,5.
*' wa-lä Sakka 'annaka qad 'arafta l-^mala, 'a-lä tarä 'annahum za'amü 'anna l-
^mata tn(at)dni: fi'liyyatun wa-amiyyatun "you doubtless know the sentence (-tjfpe)s; do not you see that it has been asserted that the (types of) sentences are two: verbal and nominal" (al-Zaggag: 'I'räb al-(iur'än I 113.4; cf. ibid. II 539,,).
kaläm and ^umlah could not plainly develop to correspond to the differ¬
ence between a sentence complete in itself and a dependent clause.
7 A note should here be made of a difference in the use of " ^umlah " be¬
tween earlier and later writers. A sentence like Zaydun yaqiimu "Zayd is
standing" would be analysed by most ofthe grammarians as a construc¬
tion of a mubtada' with its xabar in which the latter constituent, being a
finite verb, contains its fä'il in the form of a personal pronoun referring
back to the mubtada'. For Ibn al-Sarräg, such a verb-form which makes
the xabar, though complex by nature, is not a ^umlah: a predicate of a
mubtada' can either indicate (I) an entity identical with the subject,*' or
else (II) what is other than the subject, with a personal pronoun recal¬
ling the subject;** in the latter case it may either be (IIa) a verb contain¬
ing a personal pronoun referring to the subject,*' or (lib) a ^umlah con¬
taining such a pronoun.'" Examples for (IIa) are sentences like Zaydun
yaqümu, or al-Zaydäni yaqümäni, and for (lib) , inter alia, Zaydun darab¬
tuhü, or Bakrun qäma 'abühu (or with a xabar that is a nominal sen¬
tence). It will be noticed that Ibn al-Sarräg would not regard as ^umlah a
verb-form whose agent pron. resumes directly the subject, but in his
view a verbal xabar, like any predicative construction, is a §umlah when
referring to the subject indirectly through any other actant." No wonder
he called his chapter conceming the annexion of norms indicating time
to predicative complexes bdbu 'iddfati l-'asmd'i 'ila l-'afäli wa-l-^umali
"chapter on the aimexion of nouns to verbs and ^wmZoA-constmctions"
(Ibn al-Sarräg: 'U$ül II 9,)," separating the verbs (that are in fact
*' That will then be xabaru l-mubtada'i Uadi huwa l-'aurwalufi l-ma'na (Ibn al- Sarrag; 'Usüli 689). The same idea (?) is also expressed otherwise: al-mubtada'
Id budda min 'an yaküna l-mabniyyu 'alayhi Say'an huwa huwa (Sibawayh I P
2395.6 = B 278^). Cf. al-Mubarrad: Muqtadab III 118,2, IV 127,o; Ibn al-'Anbäri:
'InsäJ L 2325 = C 34g_9.
xabaru l-mubtada'i wa-huwa lladi yakünu gayra l-'awwali wa-yazharu ßhi
damiruhü (Ibn al-Sarräg: 'Usül 1 69,5.,4).
*' 'an yaküna l-xabaru fi'lanßhi damiru l-mubtada'i (ibid. I 69,5.,7). Note that
Ibn al-Sarräg would regard qä'imun in the sentence Zaydun qä'imun as a predi¬
cate identical to the suhject in its reference, whereas yaqümu in Zaydun yaqümu is a verbal predicate distinct from the subject (yakünu gayra l-'awwal), only its pronominal agent resuming the mubtada'.
. . .'aw yaküna jumlatan ßhä damiruhü (ibid. I 7O9).
" Cf. al-Mubarrad: Muqtadab III I774.
For such aimexion in general, see Sibawayh I P 4095-4 IO3 = B 4608-461,, (§ 260); also ibid. I P 44,-407 = B 54,8-502; al-Mubarrad: Muqtadab III I767- 1774. Ibn al-Sarräg seems well to recognize that verbs are possible in the posi¬
tion of a mudäf 'ilayhi precisely as they are sentence-like (see his 'Usui II 9,2).
56 Gideon Goldenberg
nexus-complexes) from the §umal. [Contrary to the view of Ibn al-Sar-
räg, the predicate (a) qäma in, e.g., Zaydun qäma would usually be re¬
garded as a ^umlah, the same as (b) qama 'abühu in Zaydun qäma 'abühu,
the pers. pron. hidden in (a) qäma being parallel to 'abuhu in (b) qäma
'abuhu. See Ibn Ya'iä: Sarh L lOVig = C I 8827.28 (where qäma must be
read for the mistaken qäma 'abühu)].
Rather strange appears the classification of predicates made by al-
Zaggägi in his grammar: the xabar-forma in sentences like Zaydun
xara^a 'abühu "Zayd — his father went out" and 'Abdu-llähi 'aJcrama
'axdica "'Abdallah honoured your brother" are defined there as fi'l wa-
ma tta^ala bihi min fä'ilin wa-mafülin "verb with agent and object
attached to it", and only a xabar in the form of a nominal sentence is
defined as ^umlah (al-Zaggägi: öumal 4812-497)." The same author,
however, would in other places regard verb -I- agent as a ^mlah having
the same status as a nominal sentence: wa-l-fi'lu wa-1-fä'ilu ^umlatun
bi-manzilati l-mubtada'i wa-xabarihi (al-Zaggägi: 'Idäh I2O19; cf. ibid.
119i9).
Ibn öinni did not mean to refer directly to the question of the differ¬
ence between kaläm and ^mlah; he nevertheless commented upon the
subject. In the first chapter ofthe Xa^ä'i?, Ibn öinni explains the differ¬
ence between qawl and kaldm:^^ While qawl is any word pronounced
(Ibn öinni: Xasä'i^ I 1713), kaläm is a (unit of) speech which is indepen¬
dent, "useful" {mufid) for (communicating) its meaning (Ibn öinni:
Xa^ä'i^ I 179), complete (ibid. I713.14) and capable of standing alone
(ibid. 197). In some sense it matches "sentence". What is important is
Ibn öiimi's note including within the category of kaläm both (a) nexus-
constructions {^umal) and (b) inteqections or exclamatory expressions
('aswät and 'asmä' al-'afäl):^^ wa-huwa [= al-kaläm] (a) alladi
Four a:a6or-con8truction8 are enumerated there to be predicated of a sub¬
ject: (1) ism huwa huwa "noun identical (in its reference) with the (subject)", (2) fi'l wa-ma ttasala bihi min fä'ilin wa-mafülin, (3) ?ar/"adverbial expression",
and (4) ^umlah= anominal clause, as in Zaydun 'abühu qä'imun "Zayd —his
father is standing". This classification was sharply condemned in Batalyösi's critical commentary precisely because constr. (2) is here separated from (4) the
^mal (al-Batalyösi: 'Isläh al-xalal 150).
This lengthy argument is possibly directed against the logieal tradition where qawl was employed for rendering "sentence".
" On these see esp. Rödiger: 'Asmä' al-'afäl and Canard: Fa'äli (and the bibliographical references there); Fleisch: TraiteU 503 (§ 153 i-j). The most comprehensive treatment ofthe 'asmä' al-'afäl and the 'aswdt in Arab grammati¬
cal hterature will be found in al-Ra(Ji: Sarh al-Käfiyah 6529-84,, (on Ibn al-IJä- gib: Käfiyah 57,-582).
yusammihi l-nahwiyyümi l-^umala, nahum Zaydun 'axüka wa-qäma
Muhammadun, wa-daraba Sa'idun, wa-fi l-ddri 'dbüka, wa- (b) sah, wa-
mah, wa-ruwayda, wa-hd'i wa-'ä'ifi aswät, wa-hassi, wa-labbi wa-uff
wa-'awwah; fa-kullu lafz^in istaqaila bi-nafsihi wa-§uniyat minhu tama-
ratu ma'nahu, fa-huwa kalämun "and it [= the kaläm] is (a) what the
grammarians call ^umal, like Zaydun 'axüka "Zayd is your brother",
qäma Muhammadun "Muhammad stood", daraha Sa'idun "Sa'id struck", or fi l-ddri 'abüka "in the house is your father", and {b) sah "hush!", mah
"let alone!", ruwayda "gently!", hä'i or 'd'i "go!" (in driving camels) of the interjections; also hassi "autsch!", labbi "at your service!", 'uff
"ugh!", 'awwah "ah, alas!"; thus any (unit of) speech independent by itself from which one picks the fruit of its meaning, that is kaläm" (Ibn
öinni: Xasä'is I 179_i2). It will be noted that only category (a) is identi¬
fied with what the grammarians will call ^mal. The idea is repeated in
the same connexion, where Ibn öinni explains that, unlike qawl, which
may also be incomplete (ndqis), the kaläm is necessarily complete
(tämm) , fa-1-tämmu huwa l-mufidu, 'a'ni (a) al-^umlata wa-(b)md känaß
ma'nähä min nahwi sahin wa-'ihin "now the complete is the 'useful' (or:
'informative'), I mean (a) the jumlah&nd (b) what is in its meaning, like sah "hush!" and 'ih "well, proceed!"" (Ibn Öinni: Xasä'is I 17,3.14).'* By
adopting the definition of kaläm as any (unit of) speech that makes
some complete sense,'' interjections and exclamations are made to be
subsumed under this category, which undoubtedly are not ^umal, as the
term ^umlah implies a structure with predicative relation between its
constituents: subject placed in front {mubtada') with xabarthat is predi¬
cated {musnad, muhaddat) of it (Ibn öinni: Luma' 10,5.,5 & IO7) or verb
predicated (musnad) or attributed {mansub) to its agent (ibid. 10,6 &
132.3).
Besides showing that not every kalämis a ^umlah, Ibn öinni's exposi¬
tion also makes it clear that for him kaläm, being the generic term for
^umal (and their likes), is the more comprehending: a ^umlah like qäma
In some contexts, interjections and (nominal) exclamations are not expli¬
citly mentioned among the sentence-types, for the sake of brevity (as in Ibn
öinni: Xasä'is I 19:, 32g_,o); in such cases one can get the wrong impression that
kaläm = independent ^umal. [The reversely formulated statement in Ibn öinni:
Lima' 10,5 is inaccurate.] öumal murakkahah are regarded as the normal forms
of kaläm (Ibn öinni: Xasä'is I 26), interjections and independent exclamatory expressions being just their analogues (cf ibid. Ill 178).
" On this conception in Sibawayh see Mosel: Term. Sib. 18. This is the idea of kaläm as often in Arabic grammar characterized by 'ifädah and (optionally) followed by suküt.
58 Gideon Goldenberg
Muhammadun "Muhammad stood" is kaläm; the ^umlah + ^umlah
sequence qäma MvJj.ammadun, wa-axüka öa'farun "Muhammad stood
and your brother is öa'far" is kaläm; and so also qäma Muhammadun,
wa-axüka öa'Jamn, wa-fi l-däri Sa'idun "Muhammad stood, and öa'far
is your brother, and in the house is Sa'id" is kaläm as well. Ibn öinni's
notion of kaläm is not strictly grammatical, as it embraces, with no
explicit distinction, communicative speech as a genus, an occurrence of
speech (discourse), and a complete and meaningful unit of speech.'* The
last mentioned sense especially approaches what is commonly regarded
as a sentence.
A conception of kaläm as a grammatical term, very similar to what
has often been considered sentence by many a modem linguist, is that
of Ibn Färis, a contemporary of Ibn öinni's. Ibn Färis mentions two
altemative definitions saying that kaläm is an utterance, or a combina¬
tion of words, which makes sense: za'ama qawmun 'anna l-kaldma mä
sumi'a wa-fuhima, wa-dälika qawlunä: qäma Zaydun wa-dahaba 'Amrun,
wa-qäla qawmun: al-kalämu huräfun mu'allafatun dällatun 'ala ma'nan
"some people maintain that kaläm is what has been heard and under¬
stood, and that is [like] what we say: qäma Zaydun "Zayd stood",
dahaba 'Amrun "'Amr went"; others say: kaläm is a combination of
words which signifies some meaning" (Ibn Färis: Sähibi 81). The
examples for the signifies some meaning" (Ibn Färis: Sähibi 81). The
examples for the former definition, and hurüf mu'allafah of the latter
would equally characterize ^umlah.
8 Confusion ofthe terms kaläm and ^umlah could arise from contexts
where a kemel sentence forming a complete grammatical stmcture,
standing alone, and making sense, is said to be kaläm and also a §umlah.
From such cases one could draw the conclusion that the two terms were
taken there to be synonymous, as if a common referent should necessa¬
rily involve an identical sense. For most writings such a conclusion
appears to be wrong. Al-öurgäni, e. g., in his practical grammar, opens
the bäb al-mufrad wa-l-^umlah "chapter on single word and (nexus-)con- stmction" saying: i'lam 'anna l-wahida min al-ismi wa-l-fi'li wa-l-harfi
yusammä kalimatan, fa-'ida 'talafa minha tnäni fa-'afädä nahwa xara^a
Zaydun summiya kaläman wa-summiya gumlatan "you should know that
the singular of a noun or a verb or a particle is called kalimah ("word"),
and when two of them are combined and are "useful" [i.e. they are in
predicative relation], like xara^a Zaydun "Zayd went out", it is called
" Qaba wah: 'I'räb al-^mal^ 17 is certainly right in reckoning Ibn öinni
among those who had not regarded kaläm and ^urrdah as equivalent terms.
kaläm, and called ^umlah" (al-öurgäni: öumal 4O2-3). It is well made
clear that xara^a Zaydun is kaläm, and also a ^umlah. What comes next
in the same chapter is not less clear in showing that in no way was it
possible for the author to think that "kaläm" is identical with "^umlah",
as he goes on specifying the cases in which al-^umlatu taqa'u mawqi'a
l-mufradi "the ^umlah may occur in the position of a single word" (ibid.
406), in which context the substitution of kaläm for ^umlah is both
unthinkable and would never occur.
The same can be stated with respect to the similar (and better known)
passage in al-Zamax§ari's Mufassal, where in the first fasl we read: wa-
l-kalämu huwa l-murakkabu min kalimatayni 'usnidat 'ihdahumä 'ila l-
'uxra wa-dälika lä yata'attä 'illä fi smayni [ ] 'aw ß fi'lin wa-smin
[ ], wa-yusamma l-^umlata "kaläm is that which is compounded of
two words one of which is predicated ofthe other, and that is not dispos¬
ed to be realized if not with two noims [ ], or with a verb and a noun
[ ], and it is called ^umlah" (al-Zamax§ari: Mufassal 4\s.\i = 63.5).
This passage means to tell that eaeh of the basic structures to which it
refers is kaläm, i.e. (an) independent (unit of) speech, making a ^umlah,
i. e. a predicative construction. The author here presents the essentials
of sentence structure, whose main condition is said to be no other than
predication, the leaning ('isnäd) of one word upon the other.'' As men¬
tioned above, kaläm and ^umlah refer to two aspects ofthe independent
sentence. For al-Zamax§ari, the two terms are both appropriate only in
those cases where the ^umlah is complete and independent. In all other
cases, ^umlah alone is used, and it is very unlikely that it could ever in¬
terchange there with kaläm; in fact it never does. Such constructions
that are contrasted with single words (nouns) , occurring in the positions
of predicate (ibid. ISg = 24,2), häl (ibid. 29, = 64,), sifah (ib. 47; = 1 154),
silah (ib. 572-3 5 = 1428.9, 143)), are always treated as ^wmoZ occurring
(wdqi'ah) in one or another position.
To sum up the common conception of the difference in meaning be¬
tween the two terms it was said that al-farqu bayna l-^mlati wa-l-
kalämi 'anna l-^mlata mä tadammana l-'isnäda l-'asUyya sawä'an känat
maqsüdatan li-dätihä 'aw lä, ka-l-^mlati llati hiya xabaru. l-mubtada'i
&c. [ ] wa-l-kalämu mä tadammana l-'isnäda l-'asliyya wa-käna maq-
Südan li-dätihi, fa-kullu kalämin ^mlatun wa-lä yan'akisu "the differ¬
ence between §umlah and kaläm is that ^mlah is what involves a basic
" Interjections and exclamations standing alone are not treated by al-
ZamaxSari with relation to their analogy to sentences, but in the chapters deal¬
ing with them as forms (al-Zamax§ari: Mufassal 6I7-67, (§§ 187-200) = I5I3-
168,).
60 Gideon Goldenberg
nexus whether (that ^mlah) is intended for itself (or: self-contained) or
not, like the predicate clause &c. [ ]) and kaläm is what involves a
basic nexus and is intended for itself; thus every kaläm is a §umlah but
not vice versa" (al-Radi: Sarlj, al-Käfiyah I 822-25)-
An accentuated discrimination between kaläm and ^umlah will be
found in the writings of Ibn HiSäm al-'An^äri. Being aware of the com¬
mon mistake made by considering the two terms to be synonymous,
Ibn HiSäm expressly distinguished between them. He defines kaläm (in
its technical sense, al-ma'na l-isti^ähi^") as a saying which is mufid "use¬
ful" ('communicative' or'informative') by intention,*' mM_/id! being that
which denotes a meaning after (the expression of) which it is proper to
be silent,*^ whereas ^umlah is a predicative construction not necessarily capable of being intelligibly uttered by itself For presenting predicative relation, Ibn HiSäm is, truth to say, dependent on a "double definition of
the sentence", as he refers (Ibn HiSäm: Mugni C 374io-i2 = D 49O7-9) to
the constructions fi'l —fä'il and mubtada' — xabar (and their variants),
and fails to employ the readily available terms indicating nexus. Since
^umlah is also commonly used for dependent clauses like ^umlat al-äart
"protasis", ^umlat al-^awäb "apodosis", or ^umlat al-silah "relative clause", which do not stand the test of 'ifädah, it is obvious, according to
Ibn HiSäm' s view, that while every kaläm is a §umlah, not every ^umlah
is a kaläm; in his words: the term kaläm is more special ('axas?) and
^wmZoAmore general ('a'amm) (IhnKiikhm: MugniCSI^-j is = D4904 n)-
It will be noticed that Ibn HiSäm' s notion of kaläm is narrower than Ibn
öinni's (see above, § 7).
Relevant to the discrimination between kaläm and ^umlah is the
enlarged predicate construction, where the predicate is itself a ^umlah
whose predicate is again a ^umlah.^^ Ibn HiSäm explains the division of
^umal in such constructions into two types: ^umlah kubrä, being a com¬
plex sentence (whose predicate is itself a §umlah), and ^mlah sugrd,
being a pedicate clause (which is a part ofthe former); one ^umlah can
be A;MÖrdwith respect to a smaller one which it includes, and at the same
time it can be sugrd with respect to a larger ^umlah. This division can be
represented by the following bracketing of Ibn HiSäm' s own example:
Ibn Hiääm: Sarh Sudür al-dahab 18,0-15.
" al-kalämu huwa l-qawlu l-mufidu bi-l-qasdi (Ibn Hiääm: Mugni C 3748 = D 49O5).
mä daUa 'ala ma'nan yahsunu l-sxücütu 'alayhi (Ibn Hiääm : Mugni C 3749 = D 49O5-S). "SUence" as a sentence boundary marker had already been used by
Sibawayh, v. Sibawayh I P 222,, = B 261,.
This could also be described as a chain of extrapositions.
[Zaydun ['abühu [gulamuhu muntaliqun]]]
1 2 3
[1] is kubrä; [3] is sugraf^ [2] is kubrawdh respect to [3], but ^w^rowith
respect to [1]. As [1] forms a complete independent sentence [kaläm), it
is also referred to as ^umlat al-kaläm^^ (Ibn Hiääm: Mugni C 38O3.13 = D
4974.,4).
Of all Arab grammarians, Ibn HiSam was the most anxiuos to empha¬
size the difference between kaläm and ^umlah. He even criticized al-
ZamaxSari for having identified (in his Mufassal § 1, see above) the mini¬
mal form of kaläm as ^umlah, as if that identification should imply con¬
fusion ofthe two terms (Ibn Hiääm: Mugni C 374,3.15 = D 490, o.,,),
despite the fact that a statement similar to al-ZamaxSari's was else¬
where made by Ibn Hiääm himself.'* As to the characterization of predi¬
cative relation, Ibn Hiääm failed to adopt the notion and terminology of
predication as such, which in the works ofhis predecessors had made an
integral part of the conception of ^umlah.
IV. The verb-form as a nexus-complex
9 As inflected verb-forms necessarily include besides the predicate
base some representation of the subject, predicative relation is also
implied within the finite verb, and its treatment in Arab grammatical
literature is relevant to the present study. The analysis of the finite verb
as a nexus-complex comprising (1) indication of person, (2) lexeme
expressing the predicate, and (3) predicative nexus, has recently been
discussed at some length in my disquisition on Verbal structure}^ If in
general a verb-form minus its personal marker is virtually nominal (v.
ibid. § 10), in Semitic languages especially this fact still appears dis-
'* [3] can also be a verbal sentence.
'' Another occurrence known to me of the expression §umlatu l-kaläm in the
grammatical literature is in Ibn al-Sarräg: 'Usülll 374,; there, however, it refers to an object-clause presenting speech (hikdyah): "(said (that):)
al-kalämu qawlun mußdun [ ] wa-aqaüu 'tiläf ihi min ismayni, 'aw fi'lin
wa-smin, wa-yusamma gumlatan ismiyyatan 'aw fi'liyyatan bi-hasabi sadrihi
"kaläm is a 'useful' ('informative' or so) saying [ ] and its minimal combina¬
tion is of two nouns, or a verb and a noun, and it is called nominaf ^mlah or ver¬
bal ^nüah depending on its beginning" (Ibn HiSäm: öämi' 24.5).
Goldenberg: Verbal Structure. Besides the historical account of the
various ideas conceming the nature and constitution of verb-forms, this inquiry is mainly intended to show how the constituents ofthe verb-complex are autono¬
mous in their syntactic behaviour in the cases of negation, extraposition, focus¬
ing, nominalization, and adverbial complementation.
62 Gideon Goldenbebg
cernible (with a little effort) on the surface of verbal morphology. In
fact, Semitic verb-forms have long been recognized as contracted nomi¬
nal sentences: "The verbal forms of the Semites are really nominal
forms, mostly in combination with pronouns. Each person ofthe verb is,
so to say, a sentence, consisting of a noun and a pronoun, which has grad¬
ually been contracted or shrivelled up into a single word" (Wright:
Lectures (1890) 164,8.22); "What are known as "verbs" are a feature of
morphology, derivable either directly or indirectly from what have been
termed "nominal sentences"" (Hodge: Nominal Sentences (1975) 1
[= 69]).** To the Arab grammarians it looked evident that verbal forms
involved an indication ofthe agent {fä'il) and that inflected verbs were
the outcome of agglutination; they too would say that the verbal base
and the agent marker were shrivelled up into a single word: Hnrm l-fi'la
lammä käna lä yaxlü min ai-fä'ili wa-lä yastagni 'anhu (jarüratan, tumma
ttasala bihi mucfmarun ßära ka-ba'(Jli hurüfihi, wa-$ärat-i l-^umlatu kali¬
matan wähidatan "as the verb would not be devoid of the agent and,
necessarily, would not dispense vrith it, a personal pronoun was attach¬
ed to it which became like one of its letters, and th(at) ^umlah hec&me
one word" (al-Zaggägi: 'I(}äh 755.6).*' In this regard there will be found
some typical inconsistency in terminology: sometimes it is said that the
agent (fä'il) has the status ofa part ofthe verb ifi'l),^" sometimes the
same idea is expressed otherwise, by saying that the verb {fi'l) and the
agent {fä'il) have the status of one word,'' all that because 'fi'l' is alter¬
nately used for verb-form and for verbal base. Somewhat complicated is
the question in what positions the 3rd pers. agent marker should be con¬
sidered pronominal. This is left to be discussed in brief in an excursus to
the present chapter, as our main concem here is the predicative relation
within the verb-form as treated in Arabic grammar.
Some points relevant to the general eomparison of syntactical and morpho¬
logical constructions were studied in Buccellati: Stative.
This process should account for the fact that in the Imperfect the modal
endings follow immediately the suffixed part of the agent marker and not the
verbal base to which they naturally belong, also the fact that in the Perfect the modal endings are omitted before the afformatives (ibid. & elsewhere).
wa-'lam 'anna l-fä'ila ka-l-^uz'i min al-fi'li (al-öurgäni: Muqtasid I 327,7, 328,9); al-fd'il yatanazzalu manzilata l-^z'i min al-fi'li {Ihn al-'Anbäri: Luma' al- 'adillah 65, j; cf. id.: '^srär 35,4.,5 = ^79,4); fa-law lam yunazzilü damira l-fä'ili manzilata harfin min sinxi l-fi'li. . . "and if they had not put the agent pronoun in the status of a letter of the verb's root . . ." (Ibn al-'Anbäri: 'Asrär 35ig ,9 = '8O5.6).
" fa-law lam yatanazzal-i l-fi'lu wa-l-fd'ilu bi-manzilati l-kalimati l-wähidati (Ibn al-'Anbäri: Liuma' al-'adiUah 67,0, 67,).
