شيء

شَىْءٌ ذ [ A thing; anything; something; somewhat; ] a word of well-known meaning: (K:) [sometimes, in poetry, written and pronounced شَىٌّ: see an ex. in a verse cited voce صُؤَابَةٌ: see also the last sentence but one of this paragraph:] الشَّىْءُ properly signifies what may be known, and that whereof a thing may be predicated: (Mgh, KT:) accord. to Sb, it denotes existence, and is a name for anything that has been made to have being, whether an accident, or attribute, or a substance, and such that it may be known, and that a thing may be predicated thereof: (KT:) MF says that it is app. an inf. n. used in the sense of a pass. part. n., meaning what is willed, and meant, or intended, [in which sense ↓ مَشِيْئَةٌ (pl. مَشِيْاآتٌ) is often used,] without restriction to its actuality or possibility of being, so that it applies to that which necessarily is, and that which may be, and that which cannot be; accord. to the opinion adopted by the author of the Ksh: [or, as an inf. n. in the sense of a pass. part. n., it may be expl., agreeably with what is said to be the proper meaning of the verb, as signifying what is caused to be or exist; accordingly,] Er-Rághib says that it denotes whatever is caused to be or exist, whether sensibly, as material substances, or ideally, as sayings; and Bd and others expressly assert that it signifies peculiarly what is caused to be or exist; but Sb says that it is the most general of general terms; and some of the scholastic theologians apply it to what is non-existent; such, however, are overcome in their argument by its not being found to have been thus used by the Arabs, and by such passages as كُلُّ شَىْءٍ هَالِكٌ اـِلَّا وَجْهَهُ [ Everything is subject to perish except Himself (Kur xxviii. last verse)] and وَاـِنْ مِنْ شَىْءٍ اـِلَّا يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِهِ [ And there is not anything but it glorifies Him with praising (Kur xvii. 46)], for what is nonexistent cannot be described as perishing nor imagined to glorify God: (TA:) the pl. is أَشْيَاآءُ, (S, Msb, K, &c.,) imperfectly decl., (Msb, TA,) or rather this is a quasi-pl. n., (Sb, TA,) respecting the formation of which there is much difference of opinion [as will be shown hereafter], (Msb, TA,) and أَشْيَاوَاتٌ, (S, K,) a pl. pl. [i. e. pl. of أَشْيَاآءٌ], (MF, TA,) and أَشَاوَاتٌ, [a contraction of that next preceding,] (K,) and أَشَاوَى, (S, K,) with fet-h to the و, (MF, TA,) and it is also mentioned as with kesr, (TA,) [and is written in both of my copies of the S أَشَاوَى, though if with kesr it should be either أَشَاوٍ or أَشَاوِىُّ, but أَشَاوَى only is meant by J, as is shown by what here follows,] originally أَشَايِىُّ, with three ى s, not أَشَائِىُّ as J says, [or rather as the word is written in copies of the S, for J may have held it to be أَشَائِىُّ or أَشَايِىْءُ, as he says that the ء was changed into ى thus occasioning the combination of three ىs, so that he held its secondary form to be أَشَايِىُّ, as will presently be shown,] because the first ى is radical, not augmentative, (IB, K,) the medial ى of the three being suppressed, and the final one changed into ا [though written ى], and the initial one changed into و, (S,) and another form of pl. is أَشَايَا, (S, Msb, K,) with the ى preserved, not changed into و [as it is in أَشَاوَى], (TA,) [likewise] a pl. of أَشْيَاآءُ, (Msb,) and أَشَيَايَا also is mentioned, (K,) as formed [from أَشْيَاآءُ] by the change of ء into ى and adding ا, (TA,) and أَشَاوِهُ, which is strange, (Lh, K,) as there is no ه in أَشَيَاآءُ, (Lh,) or in شَىْءٌ: (K:) with respect to the first of these forms, [the quasi-pl. n.] أَشَيَاآءُ, the most probable opinion is that of Kh: (Msb, TA:) accord. to him, (S, Msb, K,) it is originally of the measure فَعْلَاآءُ, (S, K, *) in lieu of أَفْعَالٌ, (K,) and therefore imperfectly decl., (S,) [i. e.] it is originally شَيْئَاآءُ, (Msb,) and the two hemzehs combined in the latter portion being found difficult of pronunciation, the former of them is transposed to the beginning of the word, so that it becomes of the measure لَفْعَاآءُ, (S, Msb,) as is shown by its having for its pls. أَشَاوَى and أَشَايَا and أَشْيَاوَاتٌ: (S:) accord. to Akh, it is [originally] of the measure أَفْعِلَاآءُ; (S, K;) but if it were thus a broken pl., [not a quasi-pl. n.,] its dim. would not be ↓ أُشْيَّاآءُ, as it is, but شُيَيْاآتٌ: (S:) accord. to Ks, it is of the measure أَفْعَالٌ, and made imperfectly decl. because of frequency of usage, being likened to فَعْلَاآءُ; but were it so, أَبْنَاآء and أَسْمَاآء would be imperfectly decl.: (S, K:) accord. to Fr, شَىْءٌ is originally شَيِّئٌ, and therefore has a pl. of the measure أَفْعِلَاآءُ, afterwards contracted to فَعْلَاآءُ; but were it so, it would not have for its pl. أَشَاوَى. (S. [Much more respecting this pl. is added in the TA, but it is comparatively unprofitable.]) The dim. of شَىْءٌ is ↓ شُيَىْءٌ and ↓ شِيَىْءٌ; (S, K, TA, but only the former in some copies of the K, the word being written in other copies شُِيَىْءٌ;) not ↓ شُوَىٌّ, or ↓ شُوَىْءٌ; (the former accord. to my two copies of the S and accord. to the copies of the K followed in the TA, in which it is said to be with teshdeed to the ى, and the latter accord. to the CK and my MS. copy of the K;) or this is a dial. var. of weak authority, (K,) used by post-classical poets in their verses. (MF, TA.) ― -b2- When a man says to thee, “ What dost thou desire? ” thou answerest, لَا شَيْئًا [ Nothing ]: and when he says, “ Why didst thou that? ” thou answerest, لِلَا شَىْءٍ [ For nothing ]: and when he says, “ What is thine affair? ” thou answerest, لَا شَىْءٌ [ Nothing ]: it is with tenween in every one of these cases. (As, AHát, TA.) [When one says لَا شَىْءَ, he means thereby There is nothing. ] ― -b3- لَيْسَ بِشَىْءٍ means [ It is nought, of no account or weight; it is not worthy of notice, or not worth anything; ] it is not a good thing; or it is not a thing to be regarded. (W p. 27.) ― -b4- [لَيْسَ مِنَ الأَمْرِ فِى شَىْءٍ is a [...]