Sharh Ibn Aqil on Alfiyyat Ibn Malik — Volume 1 (شرح ابن عقيل على ألفية ابن مالك) — Page 250

Line-by-line translation · المعاني

وَهَذَا الَّذِي ذَكَرَهُ الْمُصَنِّفُ فِي هَذَا الْكِتَابِ - مِنْ أَنَّ الْحَذْفَ بَعْدَ « لَوْلا » وَاجِبٌ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا - هُوَ طَرِيقَةٌ لِبَعْضِ النَّحْوِيِّينَ ، وَالطَّرِيقَةُ الثَّانِيَةُ : أَنَّ الْحَذْفَ وَاجِبٌ دَائِمًا وَأَنَّ مَا وَرَدَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ بِغَيْرِ حَذْفٍ فِي الظَّاهِرِ مُؤَوَّلٌ ، وَالطَّرِيقَةُ الثَّالِثَةُ : أَنَّ الْخَبَرَ : إِمَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ كَوْنًا مُطْلَقًا ، أَوْ كَوْنًا مُقَيَّدًا ؛ فَإِنْ كَانَ كَوْنًا مُطْلَقًا وَجَبَ حَذْفُهُ ، نَحْوَ : « لَوْلا زَيْدٌ لَكَانَ كَذَا » أَيْ : لَوْلا زَيْدٌ مَوْجُودٌ ، وَإِنْ كَانَ كَوْنًا مُقَيَّدًا ؛ فَإِمَّا أَنْ يَدُلَّ عَلَيْهِ دَلِيلٌ ، أَوْ لَا ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَدُلَّ عَلَيْهِ دَلِيلٌ وَجَبَ ذِكْرُهُ ، نَحْوَ : « لَوْلا زَيْدٌ مُحْسِنٌ إِلَيَّ مَا أَتَيْتُ » ، وَإِنْ دَلَّ عَلَيْهِ دَلِيلٌ جَازَ إِثْبَاتُهُ وَحَذْفُهُ ، نَحْوَ أَنْ يُقَالَ : هَلْ زَيْدٌ يُحْسِنُ إِلَيْكَ ؟ فَتَقُولُ : « لَوْلا زَيْدٌ لَهَلَكْتُ » أَيْ : « لَوْلا زَيْدٌ مُحْسِنٌ إِلَيَّ » ، فَإِنْ شِئْتَ حَذَفْتَ الْخَبَرَ ، وَإِنْ شِئْتَ أَثْبَتَّهُ ، وَمِنْهُ قَوْلُ أَبِي الْعَلَاءِ الْمَعَرِّيِّ

The author’s claim in this book—that omitting the predicate after 'lawla' is mandatory except in rare instances—represents one school of thought among grammarians. A second school holds that omission is always mandatory, and any apparent exceptions are simply interpreted differently. A third school distinguishes between absolute and restricted existence. If the existence is absolute, omission is mandatory, as in 'Were it not for Zayd, it would have been so,' meaning 'Were it not for Zayd’s existence.' If the existence is restricted, it depends on whether there is contextual evidence. If no such evidence exists, the predicate must be stated, as in 'Had Zayd not been kind to me, I would not have come.' If there is evidence, stating or omitting the predicate is permissible. For example, if someone asks, 'Does Zayd treat you well?' and you reply, 'Were it not for Zayd, I would have perished,' you mean 'Were it not for Zayd’s kindness to me.' You may either omit or include the predicate here, a principle illustrated by the poetry of Abu al-Ala al-Ma'arri.

هُنَا شَيْئَانِ نُحِبُّ أَنْ نُنَبِّهَكَ إِلَيْهِمَا ، الْأَوَّلُ أَنَّ الطَّرِيقَةَ الثَّانِيَةَ مِنَ الطُّرُقِ الثَّلَاثِ الَّتِي ذَكَرَهَا الشَّارِحُ هِيَ طَرِيقَةُ جُمْهُورِ النُّحَاةِ ، وَالْفَرْقُ بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَ الطَّرِيقَةِ الْأُولَى أَنَّ أَهْلَ الطَّرِيقَةِ الْأُولَى يَقُولُونَ : إِنَّ ذِكْرَ الْخَبَرِ عِنْدَهُمْ بَعْدَ « لَوْلا » قَلِيلٌ ، وَلَيْسَ شَاذًّا ، وَذَلِكَ بِخِلَافِ طَرِيقَةِ الْجُمْهُورِ ، فَإِنَّ ذِكْرَ الْخَبَرِ عِنْدَهُمْ بَعْدَ « لَوْلا » إِنْ كَانَ صَادِرًا عَمَّنْ لَا يُسْتَشْهَدُ بِكَلَامِهِ كَمَا فِي بَيْتِ الْمَعَرِّيِّ الْآتِي فَهُوَ لَحْنٌ ، وَإِنْ كَانَ صَادِرًا عَمَّنْ يُسْتَشْهَدُ بِكَلَامِهِ فَإِنْ أَمْكَنَ تَأْوِيلُهُ كَالشَّاهِدِ ٥٦ وَمَا أَنْشَدْنَاهُ مَعَهُ فَهُوَ مُؤَوَّلٌ ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يُمْكِنْ تَأْوِيلُهُ فَهُوَ شَاذٌّ ، وَلَا شَكَّ أَنَّ الْقَلِيلَ غَيْرُ الشَّاذِّ

Two points deserve attention here. First, the second method mentioned by the commentator is the position held by the majority of grammarians. The distinction between this and the first method is that proponents of the first view argue that stating the predicate after 'lawla' is merely rare, not anomalous. The majority, however, disagree. According to them, if the predicate appears after 'lawla' in the speech of someone whose usage is not considered authoritative—as in the upcoming verse by al-Ma'arri—it is a grammatical error. If it appears in the speech of an authority, it is interpreted if possible, as seen in witness 56 and the related examples. If it cannot be interpreted, it is classified as anomalous. Clearly, what is rare is not necessarily anomalous.

وَالْأَمْرُ الثَّانِي : أَنَّ الشَّارِحَ قَدْ حَمَلَ كَلَامَ النَّاظِمِ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ الْأُولَى ، وَذَلِكَ مُخَالِفٌ لِمَا حَمَلَهُ مَنْ عَدَاهُ مِنَ الشُّرُوحِ فَإِنَّهُمْ جَمِيعًا حَمَلُوا كَلَامَ النَّاظِمِ عَلَى الْحَالَةِ الثَّالِثَةِ ، بِدَلِيلِ أَنَّهُ اخْتَارَهَا فِي غَيْرِ هَذَا الْكِتَابِ ، وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَشَرْنَا إِلَيْهِ عِنْدَ إِعْرَابِ الْبَيْتِ ، وَتَلْخِيصُهُ أَنْ تَحْمِلَ قَوْلَهُ غَالِبًا عَلَى حَالَاتِ لَوْلا ، وَذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ لَوْلا إِمَّا أَنْ يَلِيَهَا كَوْنٌ عَامٌّ وَهُوَ أَغْلَبُ الْأَمْرِ فِيهَا وَإِمَّا أَنْ يَلِيَهَا كَوْنٌ خَاصٌّ وَهُوَ قَلِيلٌ ، ثُمَّ تَحْمِلَ قَوْلَهُ حَتْمٌ عَلَى الْحُكْمِ النَّحْوِيِّ ، وَكَأَنَّهُ قَدْ قَالَ : إِنْ كَانَ خَبَرُ الْمُبْتَدَإِ الْوَاقِعِ بَعْدَ لَوْلا كَوْنًا عَامًّا وَهُوَ الْغَالِبُ فَإِنَّهُ لَا يَجُوزُ ذِكْرُ ذَلِكَ الْخَبَرِ ، وَهَذَا - كَمَا ذَكَرْنَا - هُوَ الطَّرِيقَةُ الثَّالِثَةُ ، فَتَدَبَّرْ

The second point is that the commentator interpreted the author’s words according to the first method, which contradicts other commentaries. They all interpret the author’s words according to the third case, evidenced by the fact that he chose this interpretation elsewhere. We pointed this out during our analysis of the verse. In summary, interpret his use of 'mostly' as referring to the various cases of 'lawla.' 'Lawla' is usually followed by a general existence, which is the standard, while a specific existence is rare. Then, interpret his use of 'obligatory' as referring to the grammatical rule. It is as if he said: 'If the predicate of the subject following 'lawla' is a general existence—which is the most common case—then stating that predicate is impermissible.' This, as we noted, is the third method. Reflect on this.

…0 more translated lines, 19 more verbs and 45 more nouns on this page — subscribe to study every page.

Vocabulary · المفردات (22 verbs · 48 nouns)

• ذَكَرَ — to mention
• وَرَدَ — to occur
• أَوَّلَ — to interpret
• مُصَنِّف — author
• كِتَاب — book
• حَذْف — omission