This article is composed of a critical edition
and an analysis of the treatise titled Risāla fī taḥqīq maʿnā al-ḥarf, written by the scholar Sayyid Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d. 816/1143), who authored many
works on the rational and religious sciences. The article includes two parts: a
study and a critical edition. The study part, based on Jurjānī’s life, briefly
details Sayyid Sharīf, who devoted himself to scholarly activity from
very early on and produced a book on syntax during his twenties. Traveling for
scholarly inquiries, he attended courses with the famous scholars of his age,
such as Mubārak Shah (d. 871/1400) and Akmal al-Dīn al-Bābartī (d. 786/1384).
He is considered among the most influential scholars of his time, along with
al-Taftazānī (d. 792/1390). Having a fruitful life in respect to scholarly
activity, the author wrote many books in various fields, including Arabic and
Persian rhetoric, theology, philosophy, logic, exegesis and the Prophetic
tradition.
Following the short biography of the author, the
study describes the major characteristics of the treatise. Firstly, it
identifies the title as Risāla fī taḥqīq maʿnā al-ḥarf. Then it provides proofs of the relation between
the author and the treatise. It also examines the treatise’s subject, the
author’s methodology, the points that made the treatise important, its
intellectual background and its influence on later works. Lastly, the study
introduces the various copies that were used and explains the method that was
applied.
The second part of the article is a critical
edition of the author’s work which is, on average, three folios in each copy.
Sayyid Sharīf put forward important arguments on the relationship between meaning
and case endings in the science of syntax.
Starting with a mirror metaphor, Sayyid Sharīf examines the relations and differences between
substantive/independent meaning and indirect/dependent meaning. He mentions
that one can possibly have two different perceptions of a mirror. Firstly, if
our aim is to see the thing’s reflection in the mirror, then the reflection as
a component of perception becomes the substantive part of our mental perception.
As for the mirror, it becomes an indirect part contributing to the substantive
part of our mental perception. Secondly, if our aim is to see not the thing’s
reflection but the mirror itself, then the mirror as an element of perception
becomes the substantive part of our mental perception. The reflection then
becomes an indirect part contribution to the substantive part of our mental
perception.
Sayyid Sharīf applies the form of relationship between object
and meaning to the relationship between meaning and word. The author explains
the relationship between meaning and word through “من” which
contains the same meaning with “الابتداء”
(beginning). According to this, if the “beginning” meaning is the substantive
element of our mental perception, it has an independent meaning. Therefore, the
“beginning” meaning is used as equivalent to “noun” as a kind of word and is
expressed by “الابتداء”. If the “beginning” meaning is an
indirect element of our mental perception, it does not have an independent meaning.
Because of this, the “beginning” meaning is used as “letter” as a kind of word
and is expressed by “من”. Having established the assumed
difference between noun and letter in this way, Sayyid Sharīf argues that both categories of meanings
(independent meaning-dependent meaning) also exist for “verbs.” He explains
this argument through the example of “ضرب” and
says the following: Verb includes both an independent meaning as expressed by
“occurring” and a dependent meaning as expressed by “relative.” While the verb
“ضرب” can
mean “strike” by itself, it needs an actor/agent to express its inherent
“relative” meaning.
Sayyid Sharīf in his analysis refers to the related sections
of his predecessor ‘Aḍud al-dīn al-Ījī’s (d. 755/1354) treatise, Risāla al-waḍʿiyya,
and refers to the science of syntax in order to strengthen this approach. He
puts forward the analysis of “independent/dependent meanings” in defining the
form of words as either nouns, verbs or letters. Through this, the author
discovers the relationship between the meaning and case endings. According to
this, since noun has an independent meaning, it can be both musnad ilayh/muḥkam ‘alayh and musnad/muḥkam bih. Since the latter does not have an independent
meaning it cannot be musnad ilayh or musnad. As for verb, it
resembles a noun due to its meaning of “occurring” by itself. However, verb
also resembles letter because it needs other elements due to the “relative”
meaning inherent to it. Due to the dual character of its meanings, verb can only
be musnad in indirect sentences.
After outlining his arguments in this treatise,
Sayyid Sharīf follows with a question and answer section. Firstly, he seeks answer
to why the “relative” meaning of a verb should be mansūb (musnad) rather than mansūb ilayh (musnad ilayh). Then he proceeds to
answer why a derivative noun cannot be musnad ilayh or musnad
together with the actor of the verb while it can be musnad ilayh
or musnad
with the actor of the noun. Lastly, he concludes his treatise by responding to
criticism directed at him by the scholars of syntax who suggest that the part (قام أبوه) in the sentence ( قام أبوه زيد) be considered musnad.
