Introduction
The structure of the Arabic sentence consists of two main components: the subject (musbud) and what is mentioned about it (musnad ilayh). In addition, there may be other elements called "fadl" or "mutammim" that complement the structure. It is necessary to mention the meaning of the complement in the language. In Al-'Ain, it is mentioned that "a thing is fully completed, and Allah completes it perfectly and completely. The completion of everything is achieving its purpose." For example, you say, "These coins are hundred completely," and "the completion of this hundred." "Tam" refers to something that is complete, and it is said, "I made it complete," meaning in its entirety.
In Lisan al-Arab, it is mentioned that "a thing is completed perfectly, completely, entirely, and fully. It is also completed and perfected by someone else. Allah completes it perfectly and completely. The completion of a thing and its perfection is what is accomplished. Therefore, it means perfection and absence of deficiency. Allah's words are described as complete because there is no deficiency in them.
In terminology, it is known as: "A noun mentioned to complete the meaning of a sentence, but it is not one of its essential elements, meaning it is neither the subject nor the predicate. It can be omitted unlike the predicate, which must be mentioned or implied in the structure. It may be dispensable in syntactic speech. Anything beyond the subject and the predicate, even if its omission is possible, its presence gives an additional meaning, although opinions differ in proving the importance of that additional meaning to the sentence. However, we have found some authors highlighting this term by naming chapters in their works, as in Al-Muqarrab. It was mentioned in the chapter of the accusative case about the complete requirements, and he included under it distinction and exception. We found that the term encompasses broader topics, so we chose it as the title of a chapter that includes issues in the subject of "condition and distinction, and exception."
First issue: The exception after gerundive "ma" is nominative based on the accusative.
If the exception is interrupted and it is not permissible to empty what comes before it except for the noun that follows it, then it is not valid to enrich the exception from the exception from it, as it is for the Shaloubiyyin to be accusative as it is true object.
According to grammarians, it is accusative on the exception like all Arabs have conveyed. It is mentioned in the book, "If the exception is interrupted and it is valid to enrich it from the exception from it and it is delayed, the Banu Tamim allow following it like the connected, such as: "There is no one in the house except a donkey," and the accusative is clearer to them than substitution, and the Hijazis allow its accusative and say, "Except a donkey."
According to the Basrians, accusative is necessary if it is not delayed, such as: "There is nothing in the house except a donkey," like the connected exception, such as: "He came except Zaid and the people."
If it is not valid to enrich it from the exception from it, it is obligatory according to the Tamimis and the Hijazis, like: "it did not increase except what decreased" and "It did not benefit except what harmed," so "ma" with the verb is considered a noun, so the meaning is: "But it decreased," and "but it harmed," as if he said: "It is still nothing but a decrease, and it did not benefit except for harm."
And "ma" here is nominal gerundive, meaning: decrease and harm. Therefore, it is similar to their saying: "How good is Zaid's speech," meaning: "How good is his speech, Zaid." If the performer focused on the decrease and harm, it would not be valid. In "zad" and "nafa," there are two pronouns, and the source is "ma" the nominal gerundive and the verb is true object according to Abi Ali al-Shaloubi for "zad" and "naqs" and the interpretation is: "It did not increase anything but the decrease." Then he emptied it, as in "daraba except Zaid" and made it connected, as if the one who took the place of "benefit" is harm and the one who took the place of "increase" is decrease.
It was responded that there is no relationship between decrease and increase, benefit and harm, so that the performer cannot focus on, only the accusative is valid. And it was said: "The decrease and harm" is the subject and its predicate is omitted, and its meaning is "and this is its command." This is what al-Sirafi said, so the meaning becomes: "The river did not increase, but the decrease is its command, and Zaid did not benefit, but harm is his affair." And this statement is good because he said that it did not increase except what is still a decrease, and likewise, it did not benefit except what harmed.
But if what he concluded is correct, it is permissible according to the people of Hijaz to say: "There is no one in it except a donkey" by considering it as a subject and its predicate omitted. And Ibn al-Tarawwa considered "ma" as an additional and not a nominal, so the interpretation becomes: "It did not increase except the decrease, and it did not benefit except the harm," based on what he understood from Sibawayh's words, so he made a mistake.
Ibn al-Tarawwa was responded to by saying that he did not intend connection, but he meant that it did not benefit, but harm happened or occurred. So he did not make the harm empty for the performer as he thought.
From this type is the saying of Allah: “There is no protector today from the decree of Allah, except for whom He gives mercy” [Hud: 43] in a nominative position according to Ibn Malik, because if you omit the exception from it, which is the protector, and you rely on the exception instead of it, it is not valid.
Second Issue: The operative factor in the exception is the verb without a mediator
The accusative case in the exception, as Ibn Kharruf sees it, is the verb without a mediator, "except." There is a controversy regarding the accusative case of the exception, and many statements have been attributed to grammarians in order to establish the appropriate reason in their view. As Ibn Kharruf mentioned that the exception is governed by the verb without a mediator, so the speech means " ghayr " (which is derived from the derivative, so the verb acts as a mediator in the accusative noun "ghayr"). In other words, just as "ghayr" is accusative without a mediator when it follows "illa" in its place.
This is what is evident from Sibawayh's words, so he said: "The operative factor in the accusative noun in the correct opinion is Sibawayh's statement, the first verb or the subject.However, what Sibawayh narrated, that it is considered accusative like "dirhaman" after "ishrin" i.e., after completing the speech, is hypothetical. Thus, it is exemplified as: "I haven't seen anyone except Zaid." So, "Zaid" is accusative without "I have seen" and what comes after it. The evidence for this is that it comes with the meaning "but Zaid," not meaning "Zaid."
As Sibawayh said, "If it were possible to say 'The people came to me, Zaid excepted,' intending the exception without mentioning “illa”, it would not be in the accusative case." Fara' mentioned that the accusative case of the exception among the Basrans is with the implication of the verb meaning "not meaning Zaid." What Sibawayh intended was to explain the meaning of the exception, not the accusative case with implication.
Al-Kassai reported that it is in the accusative case due to opposition because the interpretation necessitates the people standing except that Zaid did not stand. It is accusative for its initial opposition because the exception obliges it to stand after its initial negation. It was said that it is in the accusative case with "in" (inn) in a reduced form from "inna" implied in the compound "illa" by them from "in" and "la," so it was reduced and then the nun was assimilated with the lam, becoming "illa." So, your saying, "The people stood except Zaid," is understood as "(The people stood) except that Zaid did not stand," so whoever accusative the verb, its ruling prevails, so it is accusative with it, and whoever raises it, its ruling prevails, so it is accusative with it.
Al-Mubarrad and Az-Zajjaj argued that it is accusative with "istathni" (except) and "illa" indicates it. It is as if he said, "Except Zaid" and the argument was rejected after considering the validity of our saying: "The people came other than Zaid," so "other than" is accusative, and it is not permissible to say, "I excepted other than Zaid." Also, it is not similar to "other than" in its status as a nominative case, but it contains a verb and an agent, and when it is in the accusative case, the verb is the nominative case, and the nominative case is the nominative case of what follows "illa."
As for As-Sirafi's saying, it is accusative for whatever precedes "illa" from a verb or a verb meaning, with "illa" mediating, saying: "And what necessitates consideration is that 'Zaid' is accusative with the verb that precedes 'illa,' and that is because the verb is accusative for everything that is attached to it after the elevation of the subject in various forms of the accusative case, including the proper object, such as 'I hit Zaid,' and the infinitive, adverb, condition, and objects from which the preposition particle was deleted."
Ibn Malik went on to say that the operative factor in it is "illa" itself and attributed it to Sibawayh. He argued that it is specialized in entering the noun and is not like a part of it, so it acted on it. Thus, he made "illa" equivalent to "la" carried on "inna" in what it enters, so it is sometimes occupied with another factor and affects its meaning without its expression, and sometimes it is not occupied with another factor and affects both its expression and meaning. Then he explicitly stated that the operative factor in "Zaid" is from the words that preceded "illa" and that is evident from his words, "illa" alone.
What we favor from these opinions is what was said about the operative factor being the verb with "illa" mediating, and this is the saying of the Basrans because ((although the verb is intransitive in origin, it is strong with "illa" and exceeds the exception as the verb exceeds the preposition. However, "inna" does not work even though it is intransitive as in the case of preposition)).
Question 3: The permissibility of placing the nominated element in the exception on the adverbial condition.
If "illa" (except) is repeated in the exception, the repeated element is placed on the exception. According to Ibn As-Sayyid, it can also be placed on the adverbial condition.
If "illa" is repeated without emphasis, and if some of the exceptions are excluded from each other, the operator function is not affected if it is empty, and something else is placed. For example: "Zaid did not stand up except for Umar, except for Bakr." It is preferable to empty it for the operator that follows, and it is permissible to empty the last one and place the preceding ones, so you say: "No one stood up except for Zaid, except for Umar, except for Bakr." It is also permissible to empty the middle one and place the first and the last, so you say: "No one stood up except for Zaid, except for Amr, except for Bakr."
If it is not empty, then all of them are placed on the exception if it is advanced for example: "No one stood up except for Zaid, except for Umar, except for Bakr, someone." And "Except for Zaid, except for Umar, the people stood up." It is not possible to make it agent, as the exception should not replace the exception. That is because you do not want to take the first one out of something and put it in something else.
In your statement, for example: "No one gave me anything except for Umar, except for a human." Then you replaced "a human" with "someone" and advanced it, so it becomes like your statement: "I have nothing except for a human being."
According to Ibn As-Sayyid, it is permissible to consider it a case based on the permissibility of being a adverbial condition if its adjective is delayed. He mentioned four ways in which it can be parsed:
First: They can both be placed on the exception, which is the grammarians' opinion of placing it on the exception.
Second: They can both be considered cases under the assumption that if they were delayed, they would be adjectives.
Third: The first one can be considered an adverb, and the rest can be placed on the exception.
Fourth: The first one can be placed on the exception, and the second can be considered a adverbial case.
This is clarified in the analysis by saying: "If it is said, how is it correct in our statement: 'No one came to me except for Zaid' that 'except for Zaid' is an adjective, and the particle is not described, nor can it be described?" We say to him: "The condition for an adjective is that it be a noun because it is one of the properties of nouns, and that it has a general meaning and the meaning of an action. Each of these two words, by itself, lacks this condition. However, when they come together, they have the meaning of being a noun and have the meaning of contrast. Therefore, the adjective takes the place of both of them as a case, although this is not permissible when they are separate. When they come together, they can have a ruling that is not permissible for each of them individually. Don't you see that you say: 'I entered a man into the house,' in which case the noun is in the place of the adjective for the man, and each of them individually cannot be an adjective? "
It has been countered that it is not permissible because it is not capable of being described separately. Therefore, it is not considered except as subordinate to its description in wording, so it is not permissible to place it before it at all, just as it is not permissible to say: "He stood up except for Zaid" when you mean "someone other than Zaid."
If it is a condition for its occurrence that it be an adjective and that it occurs after the exception, then the case is not permissible in it when it is advanced. Therefore, it is placed on the forbidding element as well because two cases are only placed on conjunction. As for the statement of Al-Kumayt:
"Ma li illa Allah la rabbun ghairuh
Wa ma li illa Allah ghairuka nasir"
Trans (There is nothing for me but Allah, there is no Lord but Him,
and there is nothing for me but Allah, and no helper except you)
The case weakens in "illa Allah" with "ghairuka" being placed on the exception from the aspect of meaning because he intended that the addressee is the helper. This weakens it from the aspect of wording, as it is not permissible for Allah Almighty. Unlike it, there is weakness in the origin of "illa" and "ghair" being placed for the exception, and the origin of "illa" being used for exception, and the origin of "ghair" being an adjective.
What indicates the impossibility of permissibility in what Sibawayh said is his statement about it: "That is not permissible in it except for the adjective. " That is, the adjective that is subordinate, so it is not permissible for it to be an adjective except when the doer is subordinate to the object.
This is the position that supports the argument of the impossibility of placing it on the exception and the impossibility of placing it on the case. Sibawayh's statement is evidence of the correctness of the opinion of the impossibility, saying: "As for 'except for Zaid,' it is not in the same position as 'except for the adjective. '" The intended adjective is the subordinate, not the abstract one.
Question 4: The accusativeness of source “Ma” in ma khalla and ma a'dda
Ibn Kharruf stated that the sourcehood “Ma” in except and excluding is in the accusative case indicating an exception.
Whatever is excluded by an action, particle, or noun is placed in its original position, except for "illa" (except). If the sourcehood enters except and excluding, it retains the accusative case because the sourcehood “Ma” only applies to the verb, implying the meaning of exception.
It has been narrated that the accusative case is used before the entry of the sourcehood in a lineage verse by Al-Ash'ari:
"Khalla Allah ma arju siwaka wa innani a'uddu 'ayali shu'batan min ayalika."
Likewise, the accusative case is used after the entry of the sourcehood in a verse by Labid:
"Ala kulli shay'in ma khalla Allah batilun wa kullu ni'im la mahala zayilun."
In both cases, there is a form of ellipsis, as in "laysa" and "la yakun," where ellipsis does not change their intended meaning of exception. It was determined in them, and they acted on their meaning before being placed in the position of exception. According to the Kufans, the implied words in both cases are unknown, indicating an indication of the noun and verb in the position of the verb, as if it said, "laysa fa'l hum fa'l Zaid," meaning "they concealed a hidden noun, added to Zaid but omitted. "
The accusativeness of "ma khalla" and "ma ada" according to Ibn Kharruf is for the purpose of exception, unlike in the structure: "The people came to me other than Zaid," where "ma" and what comes after it is interpreted as an apposition to "illa," as in "other than. "
Al-Sarafi said that it is accusative with the interpretation of a subject in the position of a condition, and it is acceptable for the sourcehood to occur along with its connection in the position of the condition, following the pattern of the sourcehood that is understood. Some have counted Al-Sarafi's statement as correct evidence that the verb does not empty it, so it cannot be said, "ma ja'ani ma khalla Zaidan," and it cannot be counted as synonymous with "ghayr" (other than). If that were the case, what is permissible with "ghayr" would be permissible with "ma." Thus, the accustive in it is evident because of its position as a condition.
And because the sourcehood has a syntactic position, it functions as a description, as in: "I passed by a man, whatever man I wanted," acting as a description of the described sourcehood in your saying: "I passed by a just man.And it is said that it is accusative of the adverbial position, meaning that the position of "ma khalla" and "ma ada" is accusative to the adverb, estimating: "The people stood at a time when Zaid was absent," and it carries the meaning of exception. The sourcehood often functions as an adverb, and the accusative case is not consistently used for the position, and it is also said at the time of their absence, as in: "The leader's delegate came to me."
The reduction has been mentioned with them, and according to this, "ma" is an additional word, and "khalla" and "ada" are prepositions. Al-Kisa'i and Al-Jarmi (225 AH)allowed the preposition with them, mentioning that although these particles occur in exception, they have no purpose other than being prepositions.It is also said that the preposition with them is few and cannot be measured against, and the common opinion is the accusative case, even though Al-Jarmi mentioned it from the Arabs, saying: "(If you say, why not consider 'ma' as an additional word in the accusative case, just as it is considered an additional word in the reduction? The answer is that the entry of the sourcehood as an accusative case on the verb is acceptable and measurable, and the addition before the verb is not measurable. Therefore, it is better to carry it on what is measurable)."
If you exclude the pronoun in "ma khalla" and "ma ada," you would say, "ma ada ni" and "ma khalla ni," and it is unacceptable to say, "ma hashani." In the reduction, it is "hashay. " The addition of "ma" before "hasha" is minimal, and some grammarians allowed it, like "The people stood, whatever Zaid might have forbidden," and Seebawayh prohibited the addition of "ma" before "hasha," and that is why he said, "Don't you see that if you say, 'They came to me, whatever Zaid might have forbidden,' it wouldn't make sense." They also allowed the entry of "illa" on it, like "The people stood, except Zaid".
The prevailing opinion for us is the consensus opinion because it is the most reliable opinion and includes the meaning of exception in "khalla" and "ada," and ellipsis is accepted in them as verbs. It is necessary to have the accusative case with them, so "ma" here is a sourcehood. Therefore, this opinion is more likely than "ma" being an additional word, and the reduction would apply accordingly. Similarly, it has been said that it stands for exception, unlike the reduction.
Conclusion
Every work has a conclusion that clarifies the results reached. What we can summarize in a few lines is:
- The study of grammar in Al-Andalus began with educators, and their interest was the first step in its development. Later, it flourished through the encouragement of rulers.
- The grammar that started there drew from the essence of the enlightened thought and began with Kufi thought. It followed the opinions of scholars from the East and benefited greatly from their contributions, leading to its development.
- The agent varies in subjects where differences of opinion are clearly evident. It relies on intellectual ability to present the correct ideas. Ibn Kharruf's view on the accusative case in the exception is unique as it considers the verb without intermediaries.
- Differences of opinion may be due to different interpretations of the same subject, as seen in Al-Sahili's disagreement with grammarians regarding the interpretation of the factor in the vocative case, considering the intention as the factor, nothing more.
.png&w=640&q=75)
