Indian path · level 2 · al-Mirqāt · Lesson 4 of 25
4
The simple utterance and its kinds
Utterances and signification
الأَلْفَاظ وَالدَّلَالَة
Arabic text after the print of Deoband after 1336/1917 · translation by The Mantiqi, draft
About this text
al-Mirqāt المِرْقاة
Faḍl-i Imām Khayrābādī (d. 1243 or 1244/1828–29)
Text
Arabic: al-Mirqāt, with al-Shīrkūtī's gloss al-Mirʾāt (gloss not reproduced), checked against the Delhi print of 1286/1869 (Sayyid al-Maṭābiʿ); vowel marks added by The Mantiqi (draft), Kutub Khāna Iʿzāziyya, Deoband after 1336/1917 View the scan
A signifying is either or composite. A simple utterance (mufrad) is one whose part is not meant to signify a part of its meaning, like the interrogative hamza signifying its meaning, “Zayd” signifying the one named by it, and “ʿAbd Allāh” signifying its meaning as a proper name. A (murakkab) is one whose part is meant to signify a part of its meaning, like “Zayd is standing” signifying its meaning and “thrower of the arrow” signifying what it conveys. Next, the simple utterance is of three kinds. For if its meaning is independent in being understood, that is, if understanding it does not need anything joined to it, then it is a noun (ism) if that meaning is not tied to one of the three times, and a kalima [the ' verb] if it is tied to one. If its meaning is not independent, it is a tool (adāt) in the usage of the logicians and a particle (ḥarf) in the technical usage of the grammarians. Mark this.
Know that some have thought that the kalima, for the , is what is called the verb (fiʿl) in grammar. This view is not right, because the verb is more general than the kalima. Do you not see that a form like “aḍribu” (“I strike”) or “naḍribu” (“we strike”) and the like is a verb for the grammarians but not a kalima for the logicians? For the kalima is one of the kinds of , while “aḍribu”, for example, is not simple but composite, since a part of the signifies a part of the meaning: the hamza signifies the speaker, and “ḍaraba” the meaning of the act.
The is sometimes divided in another way: its meaning is either one or many. What has one meaning is of three kinds, because that meaning must either be determinate and individuated or not. The first is called a proper name (ʿalam), like “Zayd”, “this” and “he”; it is more fitting to call this kind the real (al-juzʾī al-ḥaqīqī). The second, whose one meaning is not individuated but has many individuals, is of two kinds. In the first, that meaning is true of all its individuals equally, without differing by priority, by greater fittingness, by greater intensity or by greater amount. This kind is called univocal (mutawāṭiʾ), because its individuals agree (tawāṭuʾ) and concur in that general meaning's being true of them, like “human” relative to Zayd, ʿAmr and Bakr. In the second, that general meaning is not true of all its individuals equally: it is true of some individuals with priority, greater intensity or greater fittingness, and of the others with the opposite of these, like “existence” relative to the Necessarily Existent, glorious is His majesty, and relative to the possible, and like “whiteness” relative to snow and ivory. This kind is called graded (mushakkik), because it puts the one who considers it into doubt (shakk) whether it is univocal or homonymous.
An with many meanings has several kinds. The reasoning behind the division is this. If an utterance that has many meanings was coined for each meaning from the start, by several separate acts of coining, it is called homonymous (mushtarak), like “ʿayn”, which was coined once for gold, once for the eye and once for the knee. If it was not coined for each from the start, but was first coined for one meaning and then used for a second meaning because of some affinity between the two, then, if it became well known in the second and its first meaning was abandoned, it is called transferred (manqūl). With respect to who transferred it, the transferred utterance is divided into three kinds. The first is the customary transferred utterance, the transferrer being general usage; the second is the legal transferred utterance, the transferrer being the authorities of the Sacred Law; and the third is the technical transferred utterance, the transferrer being a usage, a specific group. An example of the first is the word “dābba”: it was originally coined for whatever creeps (yadibbu) on the earth, and then common people transferred it to the horse, or to four-legged animals. An example of the second is the word “ṣalāh”: it originally meant supplication, and then the Lawgiver transferred it to the specific set of acts (arkān) [of the prayer]. An example of the third is the word “ism”: in the language it meant elevation (ʿuluww), and then the grammarians transferred it to a word that signifies independently and is not tied to any of the three times. If it did not become well known in the second meaning and the first was not abandoned, but it is used now for the first meaning and now for the second, it is called literal (ḥaqīqa) with respect to the first and figurative (majāz) with respect to the second. An example is “asad” (“lion”) relative to the predatory animal and the brave man: with respect to the first it is literal, and with respect to the second it is figurative.
3 questions on what the commentary explains. With 6 out of 10 or more (two stars) the next lesson opens.
Question 1
Why is “aḍribu” (“I strike”) a verb for the grammarians but not a kalima for the logicians?
Al-Mirqāt says the verb is more general than the kalima: the kalima is a , while “aḍribu” is composite, since its hamza signifies the speaker and “ḍaraba” the meaning of the act.
Question 2
“Whiteness” is said of snow and of ivory, but not equally. What does al-Mirqāt call such an utterance?
An with one general meaning that is true of some of its individuals with greater priority, intensity or fittingness is called graded; it puts the observer in doubt whether it is univocal or homonymous.
Question 3
“Ṣalāh” first meant supplication; the Lawgiver then used it for the specific acts of the prayer, it became well known in that sense, and the first meaning was abandoned. What does al-Mirqāt call such a word?
When a word coined for one meaning becomes well known in a second and the first is abandoned, it is transferred; since the transferrer here is the authorities of the Sacred Law, it is a legal transferred .